Mike Williams

I believe I have always said the sound would be a min of 100 nowhere have I said otherwise. Now that is funny. Luckily you did not appear to notice the unsuppressed weapons firing in the background, which I assure you are much louder in person. How could you have missed that? Oh Robert, you are a prankster. I'm not the one who said a silenced weapon would not be heard, you were. In fact, I am the one who clued you in to the fact that a silenced weapon would be heard, which of course they would. Now your going to have to come better than this Robert, don't you ever get tired of being redfaced? www.jfkballistics.com/CE842.html Oh yea,.......and the limo was blue......not black LMAO. Michael, you need to take a course in critical thinking. It's nice that nutters matched the letters in two of the initials with their names. But that is light years from proving that they were legitimate. It is obvious beyond any possible doubt, that erased and partially erased characters were overwritten on that envelope. And yes, we can hear MUCH louder gunshots in the background of that video,which were obviously not suppressed. That's because the suppressors the guy was using were extremely effective. The bottom line is, that it is infinitely more likely that suppressed shots would go unnoticed, than unsuppressed shots. And that is exactly what happened. It is? Then of course you have some physical proof as well as an assertion? Of course, now you are catching on. Much louder shots, which tell you your silencers in that video are not represented properly, just as I have informed you. There MAY be hope for you yet. Oh yeah, and the 842 envelope was not forged? www.jfkbalistics.com/CE842.html

here ya go enjoy!

Look at the Muchmore. Do I have to hold your hand for everything? oh yea....and the Limo was blue.... I looked at the muchmore film and there were no reactions by JFK that were even close to what we see in the Towner film. You need to stop making things up Michael. Really? Are you sure, or are you on the edge of another heartbreak?

I believe I have always said the sound would be a min of 100 nowhere have I said otherwise. Now that is funny. Luckily you did not appear to notice the unsuppressed weapons firing in the background, which I assure you are much louder in person. How could you have missed that? Oh Robert, you are a prankster. I'm not the one who said a silenced weapon would not be heard, you were. In fact, I am the one who clued you in to the fact that a silenced weapon would be heard, which of course they would. Now your going to have to come better than this Robert, don't you ever get tired of being redfaced? www.jfkballistics.com/CE842.html Oh yea,.......and the limo was blue......not black LMAO.

Look at the Muchmore. Do I have to hold your hand for everything? oh yea....and the Limo was blue....

Thanks David. I think if JFK's reaction had been to the limo striking the curb or braking, he might have been thrown forward, but not to his left, toward Jackie. And the others riding with him would have reacted similarly. Nor would he have balled his hand into a fist. Those reactions were unique. JFK never reacted like that during the motorcade previously or undoubtedly, any other time in his life. And the reactions began JUST as the limo pulled in front of the Daltex building and the window that was partially broken out on the third floor. In the past, people blew off the notion that there was a shot then, because most witnesses said they never heard shots until later. But we have ignored the possibility that a suppressed weapon was used, which not only explains why most people never heard that shot, but why shots were fired wildly, missing the entire limousine. Suppressors are notorious for causing problems like that. And the mafia had been using suppressors for decades prior to 1963. There is no reason at all that they wouldn't have used them in the attack on JFK - when the limo was relatively close. Harris you are a trip. Seems you never learn your lesson. We have already proven that there was no exterior damage to the Limo, indicating no fragments struck it, we have already determined that no other occupant was hit by your imaginary fragments, so somehow these managed to not hit the Limo or anyone but JFK? :unsure: Were these special "controlled fragmentation" rounds, much like Fetzer's "controlled demolition" charges? As you have also been told a silencer would still have emitted well over 100db, unless you are really going to contend someone was shooting sub sonic ammunition, which is idiotic at best. The shot would have been perfectly audible. JFK's movements are replicated in other parts of the motorcade, as Mark Henceroth pointed out to you. Not to mention that just scant seconds later the President is smiling widely and waving to the crowd. Would you do that if you had just been struck so severely by fragments that you ducked for cover? And you have yet to prove that JFK was making a fist at all. You seem like this is a forgone conclusion, but how could you tell this when you apparently can't determine the color of the 20 foot long several thousand pound limo the man was riding in? Um.....Robert....once again the limo was blue...... :ice Michael, you did not prove that the limo was never pelted by debris from a missed shot, by citing Frazier stating that a bullet didn't damage the limo. The most that would result from a piece of asphalt striking the vehicle would be a tiny scratch - if that. You seem to be desperate to refute what 99% of your fellow nutters already believe. And the only one who told me that all suppressors generated "well over 100db", was YOU. This video, which I showed you before, give us a good perspective on the levels generated by small, suppressed weapons - a pistol AND a rifle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfPO6cFstTk And even if you were right, 130db which is the level generated by Oswald's rifle is EIGHT TIMES louder than 100db. The difference is huge. How typical of you to not realize the difference in the sound of a video and the sound in real life. "Live tests by independent reviewers of numerous commercially available suppressors find that even low caliber unsuppressed .22 LR firearms produce gunshots over 160 decibels.[7] In testing, most of the suppressors reduced the volume to between 130 and 145 dB, with the quietest suppressors metering at 117 dB. The actual suppression of sound ranged from 14.3 to 43 dB, with most data points around the 30 dB mark." Does that video sound like 130 to 145 dB to you? hahahahahahahah! Robert your inability to comprehend the obvious never ceases to amaze me. Oh yea....and the Limo was blue.....

Michael, your selection of an image that has been enhanced in a way that hides many of the erased and partially erased characters, demonstrates your integrity about as well as anything I could ever say about you. It also demonstrates a total absence of critical thinking skills. Did you actually believe that by finding such an image that the problem goes away? This is the image which proves that CE842 was altered and that information was erased. Von Pein countered with a very dark, low resolution copy of it. You countered with this thing. All the two of you prove by doing this is that you have no interest at all in getting to the truth and that you have absolutely zero integrity. This is the image that I enhanced to bring out the erased characters and partially erased characters. Robert, The image I selected is right from the Hunt article you cited. I did not in any way enhance anything, I simply took the scanned image that Mr. Hunt made at the archives, when he found the envelope, and posted it. Hunts article here. Since you cited this very article, I can only wonder why you did not use this very good scan in your assessment, rather than the poor copy you choose? I would say that zero integrity may involve not using the very best possible evidence. Zero integrity may involve using a degraded photo that has shadows, and trying to build a case around it when you know very well a more clear copy exists, but no matter. I see you clearly do not critique the scan, but only my integrity, which of course just goes to show how little recourse you have left. Do you really contend that there has been an erasure on this envelope? Your kidding me right? You are an absolute imbecile. Of course! What kind of an idiot besides myself would consider using a very good scan when searching for evidence, over a degenerated photo? How absolutely idiotic of me! You think I was stupid there, check this out! My link

Im sorry buddy, I just had to it was to good to pass up. Anyhow. JFK's wounds do not appear to be tumbling, nor soft lead. in order for them to be that silent they would certainly have to be subsonic and likely in the range of 800 fps, any idea how inaccurate that would be at say 50 yards? I would like to read more about their weapons though, its just plain interesting. Mike

Robert, Did you REALLY think it was forged? Debunking Harris Again

David, I would like to, and will read more about him. I doubt he had the tech ability of the US Gov. and certainly did not have anywhere near as good of silencers as we have today, which are still at best feeble. Mike

John, I don't think JFK was shot by Finnish poachers.....

Oswald has little influence on the examination of the rifle and ammo Bill, that was the point, you apparently missed. The point of my examining the rifle and ammo was do disprove the CT claims that it was junk...so for the third time...what does that have to do with Oswald? Can you comprehen (sic) that? Of course then you are contending that all the ballistic evidence is a plant and that the SS hid the fragments in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt? Come on Bill, time for a reality check, that Carcano was the weapon, and the only weapon used. Id love to hear your "Oswald Alibi" though! I bet it revolves around one single witness and one that was never before the WC...... Wrong again, Mike. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13779 If you believe Baker and Truly crossed paths with Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at 12:31.30 pm, T plus one to two minutes, and Baker saw Oswald in the closed west door window and Truly ahead of him didn't, then Oswald didn't walk through that door, didn't run down the steps and was on the second or first floor at the time of the assassination. Also read Michael Roffman's Presumed Guilty, a primer. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGBkIntro.html http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html In addition, if Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper and did ditch the rifle and run down the stairs fast enough to cross paths with Baker and Truly, he would have had to pass Doughery by the sixth floor elevator and the two secretaries who walkd down the steps from the forth floor, and he didn't. So that's five witnesses. Then there's Brennen and Amos, who said the man with the rifle in the window drew back and stood there for a moment, and wasn't in a hurry, and then there's the court clerk from across the street who saw a man in the Sniper's Next window four minutes after the last shot. So if that wasn't Oswald and it wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, who was it? That's eight witness who exonerate Oswald from being the Sixth Floor Sniper. He wasn't there, he didn't do it. Somebody was there, and somebody did do it though. A man, a man with a white shirt, open at the colar, with a pattern baldness at the top of his head, somebody who had an excuse to be in the building and somone who knew that they could take their time and waltz right out of there. And I didn't contend and do not contend that "all the ballistic evidence is a plant and the SS hid fragment in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt." What happened in the Secret Service garage after the limo was returned there is a matter of record, and the visit there by the FBI (Orrin Bartlett) and SS agents who discovered the bullet fragments there is extremely significant, and the DNA evidence on one of the fragments should be studied further. The only thing grotesque about it is your misperception and false description of it. And Mike, your smart for not allowing anyone to post remarks on your ballistics web site so you don't have to put up with anyone tryng to correct your false assumptions. BK Bill, Frankly the reason I dont have comments, is because I dont know how to put them on there LOL. Im learning HTML and its slow going, but I think all in all, Its going well. As for my false assumptions, you can fire away anytime you like, and prove me wrong about anything you like, just please cite the article in your remarks, and we can go from there. I really dont think you wish to get into a ballistic debate with me.....but if you insist I am as always, at your service.

Michael, your selection of an image that has been enhanced in a way that hides many of the erased and partially erased characters, demonstrates your integrity about as well as anything I could ever say about you. It also demonstrates a total absence of critical thinking skills. Did you actually believe that by finding such an image that the problem goes away? This is the image which proves that CE842 was altered and that information was erased. Von Pein countered with a very dark, low resolution copy of it. You countered with this thing. All the two of you prove by doing this is that you have no interest at all in getting to the truth and that you have absolutely zero integrity. This is the image that I enhanced to bring out the erased characters and partially erased characters. Robert, The image I selected is right from the Hunt article you cited. I did not in any way enhance anything, I simply took the scanned image that Mr. Hunt made at the archives, when he found the envelope, and posted it. Hunts article here. Since you cited this very article, I can only wonder why you did not use this very good scan in your assessment, rather than the poor copy you choose? I would say that zero integrity may involve not using the very best possible evidence. Zero integrity may involve using a degraded photo that has shadows, and trying to build a case around it when you know very well a more clear copy exists, but no matter. I see you clearly do not critique the scan, but only my integrity, which of course just goes to show how little recourse you have left. Do you really contend that there has been an erasure on this envelope? Your kidding me right?

Dave, Some years ago I was involved in making a short piece for a special on sniping. It was made over seas and was a very short portion of the show. I believe I was visible for about 15 seconds, and was in the background working with some fellows on the firing line. I really do not think we need to take a very close look at what suppressors in 1963 were capable of, as we have much better technology today, and still can not manage to get the sound levels under 100dB for high power rifles. I would think that if we can not do it today, than we would not have been able to do it in 1963. I really should do an article for my website about suppressors and put this to rest once and for all. Mike

You might want to look into the chain of custody claim that so many CT community dwellers believe in!

Oswald has little influence on the examination of the rifle and ammo Bill, that was the point, you apparently missed. The point of my examining the rifle and ammo was do disprove the CT claims that it was junk...so for the third time...what does that have to do with Oswald? Can you comprehen (sic) that? Of course then you are contending that all the ballistic evidence is a plant and that the SS hid the fragments in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt? Come on Bill, time for a reality check, that Carcano was the weapon, and the only weapon used. Id love to hear your "Oswald Alibi" though! I bet it revolves around one single witness and one that was never before the WC......

Sure Bill, its CE842. The envelope Harris claims is forged. So do you think we should get a better start now? Thanks Mike, But you can't forget Harris, can you? Forget Harris. I want to make up my own mind what it is and what it means. CE842 Envelop has on it the unique initials of a half dozen individuals who handled it as evidence. Is that right? Can we id the initials with the person who handled it and in the right order? Without mentioning Harris? Thanks, Mike, you don't have to play along if you don't want to. BK Bill, Kinda like romper room... I see Robert Frazier, Charles Killion, Fritz, Nolan, Courtland Cunningham, ....

Mike, It's a shame that everything you have to say is for naught, especially things that you seem to know a lot about because you betrayed your subjective, psychological bias by acknowledging that you also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper, something that all objective observers have determined to be false. Therefore there should be no serious interest in anything you have to say about ballistics, or guns or bullets or anything as long as you maintain the idea that the Patsy was the Sniper. Bill Kelly Amazingly enough Bill this is not the case. The ballistic evidence in the case points the origin of fire specifically to that Carcano, the ballistic evidence I have presented involves the rifle only, and is in fact relevant to the case. Of course should you ever, at any time, wish to present evidence of any other weapon being used, I will examine that with the same tenacity, until then, this is the only weapon that fired any shots. I wonder why the Ct community works so very hard to attempt to describe this thing as a worthless stick, when it was a perfectly capable weapon? Probably for the same reason that you dismiss my work, not because you have any evidence to refute it, but because if is beyond the religious beliefs some hold towards conspiracy. Mike, I never said it didn't originate with that rifle. I said that you nor anyone else can put Oswald behind the rifle and pulling the trigger, which is the point that discredits you. You can take that rifle all the way to Shanghi and back and make it do whatever it is you want it to do, but you can't put Lee Harvey Oswald behind the sights and pulling the trigger. Get that straight. And another thing, there is no such thing as a Conspiracy Thorists TC Community at all. That's another thing you imagine. Get it - Oswald not the Sixth Floor Sniper - he was set up as the Patsy, and there is no such thing as a CT Community. Begin by getting those two things right and then maybe somebody will listen to you. And your friend David Von Pain can't get the first sentence in his article right, so why should anybody believe him either? Bill Kelly Gee Bill, Why all the hostility? Because the evidence that the CT community has misrepresented the ballistic evidence for years is coming out? Amazingly enough I have actually read where some kooks don't even believe that Carcano was used. Well Bill, ya know what? It was. Now only was it used, it was the only weapon used. Unless of course you have some fragments that came from somewhere else you would like for me to examine.....but you don't, because there is none, in 47 years, not one. It was directly tied to Oswald, it was his rifle. SO you can whine and cry all you want, but your boy looks guilty all day. Mike I don't say Oswald is innocent or has no connection to the rifle. You're imagining things again. I don't say all the things that your imaginary "CT Communtiy" says, all I ask for is that someone who claims to be an objective crime scene investigator be one. I just wanted to make sure that you really aren't the objective ballistics expert you try to come across as, because if you try to put Oswald behind the trigger of that rifle you really are just a pigheaded lone nutt hack wearing blinders. I offered you the altertaive of discussing the Sixth Floor Sniper by calling him that - the one who wore a white shirt opened at the colar, had a pattern bald spot on the top of his head, stuck around for four to five minutes after the last shot and moved the Sniper's Nest Boxes around, the guy who wasn't Oswald. But by insisting that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper you call your own bluff. Bill Kelly OK How about I slow down and try this again. What does an evaluation of the rifle scope and its accuracy have to do with Oswald? Perhaps rephrasing it will help it stick a bit better? My articles address the CT Community and its claims that the Carcano was an inoperable inaccurate piece of junk, what the heck does that have to do with Oswald? I would offer that if the community is this desperate to lie about the rifle, then how far will it go? How can you say that Oswald was the patsy, and then claim that you believe he may not be innocent? How exactly does that work Bill, is that like being a little pregnant? I might also add Bill that your claim of: Is ridiculous, my analysis involves hard numbers and facts, its difficult to say that 2+2 does not equal 4 because I am not objective lol.

Sure Bill, its CE842. The envelope Harris claims is forged. So do you think we should get a better start now?

Mike, It's a shame that everything you have to say is for naught, especially things that you seem to know a lot about because you betrayed your subjective, psychological bias by acknowledging that you also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper, something that all objective observers have determined to be false. Therefore there should be no serious interest in anything you have to say about ballistics, or guns or bullets or anything as long as you maintain the idea that the Patsy was the Sniper. Bill Kelly Amazingly enough Bill this is not the case. The ballistic evidence in the case points the origin of fire specifically to that Carcano, the ballistic evidence I have presented involves the rifle only, and is in fact relevant to the case. Of course should you ever, at any time, wish to present evidence of any other weapon being used, I will examine that with the same tenacity, until then, this is the only weapon that fired any shots. I wonder why the Ct community works so very hard to attempt to describe this thing as a worthless stick, when it was a perfectly capable weapon? Probably for the same reason that you dismiss my work, not because you have any evidence to refute it, but because if is beyond the religious beliefs some hold towards conspiracy. Mike, I never said it didn't originate with that rifle. I said that you nor anyone else can put Oswald behind the rifle and pulling the trigger, which is the point that discredits you. You can take that rifle all the way to Shanghi and back and make it do whatever it is you want it to do, but you can't put Lee Harvey Oswald behind the sights and pulling the trigger. Get that straight. And another thing, there is no such thing as a Conspiracy Thorists TC Community at all. That's another thing you imagine. Get it - Oswald not the Sixth Floor Sniper - he was set up as the Patsy, and there is no such thing as a CT Community. Begin by getting those two things right and then maybe somebody will listen to you. And your friend David Von Pain can't get the first sentence in his article right, so why should anybody believe him either? Bill Kelly Gee Bill, Why all the hostility? Because the evidence that the CT community has misrepresented the ballistic evidence for years is coming out? Amazingly enough I have actually read where some kooks don't even believe that Carcano was used. Well Bill, ya know what? It was. Now only was it used, it was the only weapon used. Unless of course you have some fragments that came from somewhere else you would like for me to examine.....but you don't, because there is none, in 47 years, not one. It was directly tied to Oswald, it was his rifle. SO you can whine and cry all you want, but your boy looks guilty all day. Mike I don't say Oswald is innocent or has no connection to the rifle. You're imagining things again. I don't say all the things that your imaginary "CT Communtiy" says, all I ask for is that someone who claims to be an objective crime scene investigator be one. I just wanted to make sure that you really aren't the objective ballistics expert you try to come across as, because if you try to put Oswald behind the trigger of that rifle you really are just a pigheaded lone nutt hack wearing blinders. I offered you the altertaive of discussing the Sixth Floor Sniper by calling him that - the one who wore a white shirt opened at the colar, had a pattern bald spot on the top of his head, stuck around for four to five minutes after the last shot and moved the Sniper's Nest Boxes around, the guy who wasn't Oswald. But by insisting that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper you call your own bluff. Bill Kelly OK How about I slow down and try this again. What does an evaluation of the rifle scope and its accuracy have to do with Oswald? Perhaps rephrasing it will help it stick a bit better? My articles address the CT Community and its claims that the Carcano was an inoperable inaccurate piece of junk, what the heck does that have to do with Oswald? I would offer that if the community is this desperate to lie about the rifle, then how far will it go? How can you say that Oswald was the patsy, and then claim that you believe he may not be innocent? How exactly does that work Bill, is that like being a little pregnant?

I can't believe that even you would be stupid enough to make an argument like this. Yes even I would be stupid enough to post a clear photo that shows no igns of the tampering you yearn for. Will somebody actually explain what this is? It appears to be initials on an evidence envelope. What was in the envelope again? Bullet and bullet fragments? Is that what it is? And if it is, can anyone just give us the names of those associted with the intitials? Thanks, Bill Kelly Why not have a look back through the thread Bill, wont cost a dime. But as usual, Ill spell it out for ya. Its the envelope you and that simpleton James DiEugenio had a fit over. Its the envelope that your pal Harris used to speculate, and assume, that there was a forgery. He cites Hunts article, and guess what I find when reading the article.....this little original scan that show all the dark erasure marks Harris claims is bunk. Is this the sort of shoddy work that you and James DiEugenio support? Can you really trust a man who tells me: Your little buddy Harris there does not even know the color of the limo for Christ sake. No wonder you and the loon platoon are so lost. I ask what it is and you attack me, dieugenio and Harris, when I just ask you simply what it is? Thanks, Bill Kelly If you did not know what it was, then what was the point of your blazing me earlier in this very thread? I might also add that this is hardly a single case. First you ask me TO which I replied The average stamp weights about a gram, or 15 grains. We know that 399 has much less loss. However a grain is 1/7000th of a pound. I hardly think we can determine anything conclusively by what anyone guessed, considering the minute weight involved. I think the most 399 could weigh is 162. Loss from firing .4-.6 grains. So that leaves us with 161.5 potentially (using the average of .4 to.6) Found it weighed 158.6 so it would have a loss of no more than 2.9 grains. As you know Bill I am hardly one to support the SBT, at least not yet. So I really have no dog in this race. And your counter Amazing considering I answered the question you asked, then you bash me for it. Then you come up today and have no clue what the friggin thread is about.....this whole evidence thing must be challenging for you, when you can't remember what the hell you were talking about LOL.

I can't believe that even you would be stupid enough to make an argument like this. Yes even I would be stupid enough to post a clear photo that shows no igns of the tampering you yearn for. Will somebody actually explain what this is? It appears to be initials on an evidence envelope. What was in the envelope again? Bullet and bullet fragments? Is that what it is? And if it is, can anyone just give us the names of those associted with the intitials? Thanks, Bill Kelly Why not have a look back through the thread Bill, wont cost a dime. But as usual, Ill spell it out for ya. Its the envelope you and that simpleton James DiEugenio had a fit over. Its the envelope that your pal Harris used to speculate, and assume, that there was a forgery. He cites Hunts article, and guess what I find when reading the article.....this little original scan that show all the dark erasure marks Harris claims is bunk. And the best part is Harris knew this prime photo was there! And refused to use it....I wonder why? Is this the sort of shoddy work that you and James DiEugenio support? Can you really trust a man who tells me: Your little buddy Harris there does not even know the color of the limo for Christ sake. No wonder you and the loon platoon are so lost.

Mike, It's a shame that everything you have to say is for naught, especially things that you seem to know a lot about because you betrayed your subjective, psychological bias by acknowledging that you also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper, something that all objective observers have determined to be false. Therefore there should be no serious interest in anything you have to say about ballistics, or guns or bullets or anything as long as you maintain the idea that the Patsy was the Sniper. Bill Kelly Amazingly enough Bill this is not the case. The ballistic evidence in the case points the origin of fire specifically to that Carcano, the ballistic evidence I have presented involves the rifle only, and is in fact relevant to the case. Of course should you ever, at any time, wish to present evidence of any other weapon being used, I will examine that with the same tenacity, until then, this is the only weapon that fired any shots. I wonder why the Ct community works so very hard to attempt to describe this thing as a worthless stick, when it was a perfectly capable weapon? Probably for the same reason that you dismiss my work, not because you have any evidence to refute it, but because if is beyond the religious beliefs some hold towards conspiracy. Mike, I never said it didn't originate with that rifle. I said that you nor anyone else can put Oswald behind the rifle and pulling the trigger, which is the point that discredits you. You can take that rifle all the way to Shanghi and back and make it do whatever it is you want it to do, but you can't put Lee Harvey Oswald behind the sights and pulling the trigger. Get that straight. And another thing, there is no such thing as a Conspiracy Thorists TC Community at all. That's another thing you imagine. Get it - Oswald not the Sixth Floor Sniper - he was set up as the Patsy, and there is no such thing as a CT Community. Begin by getting those two things right and then maybe somebody will listen to you. And your friend David Von Pain can't get the first sentence in his article right, so why should anybody believe him either? Bill Kelly Gee Bill, Why all the hostility? Because the evidence that the CT community has misrepresented the ballistic evidence for years is coming out? Amazingly enough I have actually read where some kooks don't even believe that Carcano was used. Well Bill, ya know what? It was. Now only was it used, it was the only weapon used. Unless of course you have some fragments that came from somewhere else you would like for me to examine.....but you don't, because there is none, in 47 years, not one. It was directly tied to Oswald, it was his rifle. SO you can whine and cry all you want, but your boy looks guilty all day. Mike

Mike, It's a shame that everything you have to say is for naught, especially things that you seem to know a lot about because you betrayed your subjective, psychological bias by acknowledging that you also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper, something that all objective observers have determined to be false. Therefore there should be no serious interest in anything you have to say about ballistics, or guns or bullets or anything as long as you maintain the idea that the Patsy was the Sniper. Bill Kelly Amazingly enough Bill this is not the case. The ballistic evidence in the case points the origin of fire specifically to that Carcano, the ballistic evidence I have presented involves the rifle only, and is in fact relevant to the case. Of course should you ever, at any time, wish to present evidence of any other weapon being used, I will examine that with the same tenacity, until then, this is the only weapon that fired any shots. I wonder why the Ct community works so very hard to attempt to describe this thing as a worthless stick, when it was a perfectly capable weapon? Probably for the same reason that you dismiss my work, not because you have any evidence to refute it, but because if is beyond the religious beliefs some hold towards conspiracy.

Enjoy. Find article here. Mike