A Hole In One!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mike, this stuff about the '67 CBS tests leads me to wonder which Carcano they used: the accurate 40-inch "short rifle" [model 91/38] or the less-accurate 36-inch "shortened" rifle [model 91/24]. Might've made a BIG difference in the accuracy part of the tests.

BTW: Wasn't Howard Donahue the man behind the Bonar Menninger book, Mortal Error ? That would be the book that accused SS agent Hickey of accidentally firing the fatal headshot from the SS follow-up car from his AR-15...for which, IIRC, Hickey sued Menninger...is that not correct?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhickey.htm

Mark,

Im not convinced that the differences in rifles would have made a major change in such a short distance shooting event.

I believe that is the same Donahue. It also seems, if I recall correctly, there was some conflict between them after the book. what I suspected was that Donahue was less than impressed with the way Menninger portrayed the information.

Be that as it may, it does not change the fact that Donahue actually completed the event.

Best,

Mike

The Model 91/24 to which Mark refers is the old Long Rifles of the period from when these weapons were placed into service in 1892 until the year 1924 when a modification began in which literally thousands of the old Long Rifle which had the progressive gain twist were converted to Model 91/24 Carbines by having the front 32.8 cm/12.79 inches of the rifle barrel cut off.

Dependent upon exactly how much wear the weapon had prior to "cut-down", at a hundred yards, some of them may have difficulty in repetetively hitting between the two end-zone goal posts.

Which weapon is of course responsible for much of the "lore" in regards to the inability to hit anything with the weapon, as well as the unsafe nature of the weapon.

Both of which have considerable merit for that specific weapon, which also happens to be the weapon in the Klein's add that LHO ordered.

http://www.carbinesforcollectors.com/9124ts.html

Barrel Length Model 91 Long Rifle:---------------------------------------78cm

Barrel length Model 91/24 Carbine:--------------------------------------92.1cm

12.79 inches of the barrel, which also contained the final full-gain twist of the rifling, now gone.

So the longer rifles of course would be more accurate, and the shorter "modified" rifles a crap shoot dependent upon wear before the modification began. Makes sense.

So if in fact a carbine were in place during the shooting event, its accuracy would have been great to lousy.....

Nothing comes easy do it?

The Klein's add was for the Model 91/24 Carbine, (cut-down Long Rifle) which by it's very nature is extremely inaccurate.

The Order number of LHO's order form was for the Model 91/24 Carbine, which only a complete fool would attempt to utilize in an assassination attempt.

LHO, as demonstrated by his discussion with Adrian Alba, clearly demonstrated his knowledge of the potential effect that shortening a rifle into a carbine, could have on accuracy.

Then, LHO is shown holding a Model 91/38 Short Rifle.

And lastly, a Model 91/38 Short rifle, which was utilized in the assassination of JFK, is recovered on the sixth floor of the TSDB.

Me thinks that Mark is merely attempting to get a "second" informed opinion as to the viability of utilization of a Model 91/24 Carbine in the shooting event, and exactly why one would not want to attempt to utilize such a weapon.

These old 91/24's demonstrated considerable internal wear also. The progressive gain twist obviusly cut down on some of this initial wear, but the early day highly corrosive powder did it's damage quite effectively.

[Mark Knight]

Mike, this stuff about the '67 CBS tests leads me to wonder which Carcano they used: the accurate 40-inch "short rifle" [model 91/38] or the less-accurate 36-inch "shortened" rifle [model 91/24]. Might've made a BIG difference in the accuracy part of the tests.

BTW: Wasn't Howard Donahue the man behind the Bonar Menninger book, Mortal Error ? That would be the book that accused SS agent Hickey of accidentally firing the fatal headshot from the SS follow-up car from his AR-15...for which, IIRC, Hickey sued Menninger...is that not correct?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhickey.htm

Mark,

Im not convinced that the differences in rifles would have made a major change in such a short distance shooting event.

I believe that is the same Donahue. It also seems, if I recall correctly, there was some conflict between them after the book. what I suspected was that Donahue was less than impressed with the way Menninger portrayed the information.

Be that as it may, it does not change the fact that Donahue actually completed the event.

Best,

Mike

The Model 91/24 to which Mark refers is the old Long Rifles of the period from when these weapons were placed into service in 1892 until the year 1924 when a modification began in which literally thousands of the old Long Rifle which had the progressive gain twist were converted to Model 91/24 Carbines by having the front 32.8 cm/12.79 inches of the rifle barrel cut off.

Dependent upon exactly how much wear the weapon had prior to "cut-down", at a hundred yards, some of them may have difficulty in repetetively hitting between the two end-zone goal posts.

Which weapon is of course responsible for much of the "lore" in regards to the inability to hit anything with the weapon, as well as the unsafe nature of the weapon.

Both of which have considerable merit for that specific weapon, which also happens to be the weapon in the Klein's add that LHO ordered.

http://www.carbinesforcollectors.com/9124ts.html

Barrel Length Model 91 Long Rifle:---------------------------------------78cm

Barrel length Model 91/24 Carbine:--------------------------------------92.1cm

12.79 inches of the barrel, which also contained the final full-gain twist of the rifling, now gone.

So the longer rifles of course would be more accurate, and the shorter "modified" rifles a crap shoot dependent upon wear before the modification began. Makes sense.

So if in fact a carbine were in place during the shooting event, its accuracy would have been great to lousy.....

Nothing comes easy do it?

The Klein's add was for the Model 91/24 Carbine, (cut-down Long Rifle) which by it's very nature is extremely inaccurate.

The Order number of LHO's order form was for the Model 91/24 Carbine, which only a complete fool would attempt to utilize in an assassination attempt.

LHO, as demonstrated by his discussion with Adrian Alba, clearly demonstrated his knowledge of the potential effect that shortening a rifle into a carbine, could have on accuracy.

Then, LHO is shown holding a Model 91/38 Short Rifle.

And lastly, a Model 91/38 Short rifle, which was utilized in the assassination of JFK, is recovered on the sixth floor of the TSDB.

Me thinks that Mark is merely attempting to get a "second" informed opinion as to the viability of utilization of a Model 91/24 Carbine in the shooting event, and exactly why one would not want to attempt to utilize such a weapon.

These old 91/24's demonstrated considerable internal wear also. The progressive gain twist obviusly cut down on some of this initial wear, but the early day highly corrosive powder did it's damage quite effectively.

Actually, Tom, the point I was attempting to raise was...if CBS attempted the recreation with the 91/24 that Oswald ordered from Klein's, instead of the 91/38 that was found in the TSBD, it might explain why their experts had trouble with accuracy, as well as why thry might've had trouble with the operation of worn bolts and such. Whereas, if CBS attempted their recreation with the 91/38 short rifle, the degree of difficulty would, IMHO, be quite different.

Anyone know if there's a record of what variety rifle CBS used?

[Mike Williams]

Mike, this stuff about the '67 CBS tests leads me to wonder which Carcano they used: the accurate 40-inch "short rifle" [model 91/38] or the less-accurate 36-inch "shortened" rifle [model 91/24]. Might've made a BIG difference in the accuracy part of the tests.

BTW: Wasn't Howard Donahue the man behind the Bonar Menninger book, Mortal Error ? That would be the book that accused SS agent Hickey of accidentally firing the fatal headshot from the SS follow-up car from his AR-15...for which, IIRC, Hickey sued Menninger...is that not correct?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhickey.htm

Mark,

Im not convinced that the differences in rifles would have made a major change in such a short distance shooting event.

I believe that is the same Donahue. It also seems, if I recall correctly, there was some conflict between them after the book. what I suspected was that Donahue was less than impressed with the way Menninger portrayed the information.

Be that as it may, it does not change the fact that Donahue actually completed the event.

Best,

Mike

The Model 91/24 to which Mark refers is the old Long Rifles of the period from when these weapons were placed into service in 1892 until the year 1924 when a modification began in which literally thousands of the old Long Rifle which had the progressive gain twist were converted to Model 91/24 Carbines by having the front 32.8 cm/12.79 inches of the rifle barrel cut off.

Dependent upon exactly how much wear the weapon had prior to "cut-down", at a hundred yards, some of them may have difficulty in repetetively hitting between the two end-zone goal posts.

Which weapon is of course responsible for much of the "lore" in regards to the inability to hit anything with the weapon, as well as the unsafe nature of the weapon.

Both of which have considerable merit for that specific weapon, which also happens to be the weapon in the Klein's add that LHO ordered.

http://www.carbinesforcollectors.com/9124ts.html

Barrel Length Model 91 Long Rifle:---------------------------------------78cm

Barrel length Model 91/24 Carbine:--------------------------------------92.1cm

12.79 inches of the barrel, which also contained the final full-gain twist of the rifling, now gone.

So the longer rifles of course would be more accurate, and the shorter "modified" rifles a crap shoot dependent upon wear before the modification began. Makes sense.

So if in fact a carbine were in place during the shooting event, its accuracy would have been great to lousy.....

Nothing comes easy do it?

The Klein's add was for the Model 91/24 Carbine, (cut-down Long Rifle) which by it's very nature is extremely inaccurate.

The Order number of LHO's order form was for the Model 91/24 Carbine, which only a complete fool would attempt to utilize in an assassination attempt.

LHO, as demonstrated by his discussion with Adrian Alba, clearly demonstrated his knowledge of the potential effect that shortening a rifle into a carbine, could have on accuracy.

Then, LHO is shown holding a Model 91/38 Short Rifle.

And lastly, a Model 91/38 Short rifle, which was utilized in the assassination of JFK, is recovered on the sixth floor of the TSDB.

Me thinks that Mark is merely attempting to get a "second" informed opinion as to the viability of utilization of a Model 91/24 Carbine in the shooting event, and exactly why one would not want to attempt to utilize such a weapon.

These old 91/24's demonstrated considerable internal wear also. The progressive gain twist obviusly cut down on some of this initial wear, but the early day highly corrosive powder did it's damage quite effectively.

Actually, Tom, the point I was attempting to raise was...if CBS attempted the recreation with the 91/24 that Oswald ordered from Klein's, instead of the 91/38 that was found in the TSBD, it might explain why their experts had trouble with accuracy, as well as why thry might've had trouble with the operation of worn bolts and such. Whereas, if CBS attempted their recreation with the 91/38 short rifle, the degree of difficulty would, IMHO, be quite different.

Anyone know if there's a record of what variety rifle CBS used?

Mark,

It has been awhile since I watched the show. Im due I will watch it again tonight and let you know. There is actually a rather lengthy segment where they show the tests.

Mike

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mike, this stuff about the '67 CBS tests leads me to wonder which Carcano they used: the accurate 40-inch "short rifle" [model 91/38] or the less-accurate 36-inch "shortened" rifle [model 91/24]. Might've made a BIG difference in the accuracy part of the tests.

BTW: Wasn't Howard Donahue the man behind the Bonar Menninger book, Mortal Error ? That would be the book that accused SS agent Hickey of accidentally firing the fatal headshot from the SS follow-up car from his AR-15...for which, IIRC, Hickey sued Menninger...is that not correct?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhickey.htm

Mark,

Im not convinced that the differences in rifles would have made a major change in such a short distance shooting event.

I believe that is the same Donahue. It also seems, if I recall correctly, there was some conflict between them after the book. what I suspected was that Donahue was less than impressed with the way Menninger portrayed the information.

Be that as it may, it does not change the fact that Donahue actually completed the event.

Best,

Mike

The Model 91/24 to which Mark refers is the old Long Rifles of the period from when these weapons were placed into service in 1892 until the year 1924 when a modification began in which literally thousands of the old Long Rifle which had the progressive gain twist were converted to Model 91/24 Carbines by having the front 32.8 cm/12.79 inches of the rifle barrel cut off.

Dependent upon exactly how much wear the weapon had prior to "cut-down", at a hundred yards, some of them may have difficulty in repetetively hitting between the two end-zone goal posts.

Which weapon is of course responsible for much of the "lore" in regards to the inability to hit anything with the weapon, as well as the unsafe nature of the weapon.

Both of which have considerable merit for that specific weapon, which also happens to be the weapon in the Klein's add that LHO ordered.

http://www.carbinesforcollectors.com/9124ts.html

Barrel Length Model 91 Long Rifle:---------------------------------------78cm

Barrel length Model 91/24 Carbine:--------------------------------------92.1cm

12.79 inches of the barrel, which also contained the final full-gain twist of the rifling, now gone.

So the longer rifles of course would be more accurate, and the shorter "modified" rifles a crap shoot dependent upon wear before the modification began. Makes sense.

So if in fact a carbine were in place during the shooting event, its accuracy would have been great to lousy.....

Nothing comes easy do it?

The Klein's add was for the Model 91/24 Carbine, (cut-down Long Rifle) which by it's very nature is extremely inaccurate.

The Order number of LHO's order form was for the Model 91/24 Carbine, which only a complete fool would attempt to utilize in an assassination attempt.

LHO, as demonstrated by his discussion with Adrian Alba, clearly demonstrated his knowledge of the potential effect that shortening a rifle into a carbine, could have on accuracy.

Then, LHO is shown holding a Model 91/38 Short Rifle.

And lastly, a Model 91/38 Short rifle, which was utilized in the assassination of JFK, is recovered on the sixth floor of the TSDB.

Me thinks that Mark is merely attempting to get a "second" informed opinion as to the viability of utilization of a Model 91/24 Carbine in the shooting event, and exactly why one would not want to attempt to utilize such a weapon.

These old 91/24's demonstrated considerable internal wear also. The progressive gain twist obviusly cut down on some of this initial wear, but the early day highly corrosive powder did it's damage quite effectively.

Actually, Tom, the point I was attempting to raise was...if CBS attempted the recreation with the 91/24 that Oswald ordered from Klein's, instead of the 91/38 that was found in the TSBD, it might explain why their experts had trouble with accuracy, as well as why thry might've had trouble with the operation of worn bolts and such. Whereas, if CBS attempted their recreation with the 91/38 short rifle, the degree of difficulty would, IMHO, be quite different.

Anyone know if there's a record of what variety rifle CBS used?

Good point, as well as one that had never crossed my mind.

However, so long as anyone continues to attempt to "stuff" three-hit scenario's into an approximately 5.6 to 5.8 second elapsed time, irrelevant as to which model Carcano utilized, there will always be problems.

Provided of course we stick with the "lone shooter" concept.

[Bernice Moore]

Of the twenty attempts by the eleven marksmen..the CBS only made known, four.....

CBS perhaps would have said so...if the other marksmen had averaged two out of three hits....

CBS finally did disclose that only four of the eleven marksmen managed, two hits out of three,,,,

"Who Killed Kennedy ? The Final Chapter".....CBS Reports, November 22, 1993

B.......

[Mike Williams]

Mike, this stuff about the '67 CBS tests leads me to wonder which Carcano they used: the accurate 40-inch "short rifle" [model 91/38] or the less-accurate 36-inch "shortened" rifle [model 91/24]. Might've made a BIG difference in the accuracy part of the tests.

BTW: Wasn't Howard Donahue the man behind the Bonar Menninger book, Mortal Error ? That would be the book that accused SS agent Hickey of accidentally firing the fatal headshot from the SS follow-up car from his AR-15...for which, IIRC, Hickey sued Menninger...is that not correct?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhickey.htm

Mark,

Im not convinced that the differences in rifles would have made a major change in such a short distance shooting event.

I believe that is the same Donahue. It also seems, if I recall correctly, there was some conflict between them after the book. what I suspected was that Donahue was less than impressed with the way Menninger portrayed the information.

Be that as it may, it does not change the fact that Donahue actually completed the event.

Best,

Mike

The Model 91/24 to which Mark refers is the old Long Rifles of the period from when these weapons were placed into service in 1892 until the year 1924 when a modification began in which literally thousands of the old Long Rifle which had the progressive gain twist were converted to Model 91/24 Carbines by having the front 32.8 cm/12.79 inches of the rifle barrel cut off.

Dependent upon exactly how much wear the weapon had prior to "cut-down", at a hundred yards, some of them may have difficulty in repetetively hitting between the two end-zone goal posts.

Which weapon is of course responsible for much of the "lore" in regards to the inability to hit anything with the weapon, as well as the unsafe nature of the weapon.

Both of which have considerable merit for that specific weapon, which also happens to be the weapon in the Klein's add that LHO ordered.

http://www.carbinesforcollectors.com/9124ts.html

Barrel Length Model 91 Long Rifle:---------------------------------------78cm

Barrel length Model 91/24 Carbine:--------------------------------------92.1cm

12.79 inches of the barrel, which also contained the final full-gain twist of the rifling, now gone.

So the longer rifles of course would be more accurate, and the shorter "modified" rifles a crap shoot dependent upon wear before the modification began. Makes sense.

So if in fact a carbine were in place during the shooting event, its accuracy would have been great to lousy.....

Nothing comes easy do it?

The Klein's add was for the Model 91/24 Carbine, (cut-down Long Rifle) which by it's very nature is extremely inaccurate.

The Order number of LHO's order form was for the Model 91/24 Carbine, which only a complete fool would attempt to utilize in an assassination attempt.

LHO, as demonstrated by his discussion with Adrian Alba, clearly demonstrated his knowledge of the potential effect that shortening a rifle into a carbine, could have on accuracy.

Then, LHO is shown holding a Model 91/38 Short Rifle.

And lastly, a Model 91/38 Short rifle, which was utilized in the assassination of JFK, is recovered on the sixth floor of the TSDB.

Me thinks that Mark is merely attempting to get a "second" informed opinion as to the viability of utilization of a Model 91/24 Carbine in the shooting event, and exactly why one would not want to attempt to utilize such a weapon.

These old 91/24's demonstrated considerable internal wear also. The progressive gain twist obviusly cut down on some of this initial wear, but the early day highly corrosive powder did it's damage quite effectively.

Actually, Tom, the point I was attempting to raise was...if CBS attempted the recreation with the 91/24 that Oswald ordered from Klein's, instead of the 91/38 that was found in the TSBD, it might explain why their experts had trouble with accuracy, as well as why thry might've had trouble with the operation of worn bolts and such. Whereas, if CBS attempted their recreation with the 91/38 short rifle, the degree of difficulty would, IMHO, be quite different.

Anyone know if there's a record of what variety rifle CBS used?

Good point, as well as one that had never crossed my mind.

However, so long as anyone continues to attempt to "stuff" three-hit scenario's into an approximately 5.6 to 5.8 second elapsed time, irrelevant as to which model Carcano utilized, there will always be problems.

Provided of course we stick with the "lone shooter" concept.

Tom,

It is good to see that I am not the only one who sees the real issue of stuffing!

It just seems many dont "get it"

Mike

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom,

It is good to see that I am not the only one who sees the real issue of stuffing!

It just seems many dont "get it"

Mike

Been "preaching" that sermon for a long, long time.

To include at Lancer and alt. assassination.

There are a few here that now "get it". Especially with my constant and consistent pointing to all of that testimony which repeatedly stated that the Z313 impact was the second shot fired.

Then, when I began to fully reference the third/last/final shot impact which was some 30 feet farther down Elm St. the challanges really began. Along with the "no evidence" of such an event.

The WC sold "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", and many, many persons jumped in line and fully "bought" into this absolutely ridiculous shooting scenario.

Nevertheless, there are those here who long ago informed me that they were not aware that they had to "relearn" everything which they thought that they knew in regards to the event.

Which is about the only reason that I continue to hang around, as I long ago determined that stupid people are not entitled to facts and truths.

Someone has to at least make an attempt to point to the corret road for those who chose not to be ignorant and/or stupid.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...berts&st=45

Just to get a few qualified opinions on the subject.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g..._poor_shot.html

Some lone-gunman theorists will assert that Oswald's alleged shooting performance was duplicated by several expert marksmen in the CBS rifle test. However, the CBS test did not simulate all of the factors under which Oswald allegedly fired. Furthermore, the four riflemen who managed to score at least two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds failed to do so on their first attempts, yet Oswald would have had ONLY one attempt. And, needless to say, all of these men were experienced, expert riflemen. Seven of the eleven CBS shooters failed to score at least two hits on ANY of their attempts. The best shot in the group, Howard Donahue, took THREE attempts to score at least two hits out of three shots in under six seconds. In addition, the CBS shooters did not use the alleged murder weapon, with its difficult bolt and odd trigger--they used a different Carcano.

The impossibility of Oswald's alleged shooting feat was what led former Marine sniper Craig Roberts to reject the lone-gunman theory. Roberts explains as he recounts the first time he visited the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository:

I turned my attention to the window in the southeast corner--the infamous Sniper's Nest. . . . I immediately felt like I had been hit with a sledge hammer. The word that came to mind at what I saw as I looked down through the window to Elm Street and the kill zone was: IMPOSSIBLE!

I knew instantly that Oswald could not have done it. . . . The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was that *I* could not have done it. (KILL ZONE: A SNIPER LOOKS AT DEALEY PLAZA, p. 5)

Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock is likewise skeptical of Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Hathcock is a former senior instructor at the U. S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. He has been described as the most famous American military sniper in history. In Vietnam he was credited with 93 confirmed kills. He now conducts police SWAT team sniper schools across the country. Craig Roberts asked Hathcock about the marksmanship feat attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission. Hathcock answered that he did not believe Oswald could have done what the Commission said he did. Added Hathcock,

Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. (KILL ZONE, pp. 89-90)

Are Gunny Hathcock (now deceased) and Craig Roberts qualified to make such statements? Have a look and decide for yourself. Just to be clear, these gentlemen say Oswald could not have shot like he has been said to to have shot...

http://www.riflewarrior.com/resume.htm

http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-sto...loshathcock.asp

Who to believe, These guys or Mr. Purvis?

Who to believe, These guys or Mr. Purvis?

Well!

Since all of "These guys" were dumb enough to believe the WC and attempt to "STUFF" three shots into less than 6 seconds, might I first recommend that one check out the IQ of anyone who has fallen for/believed the WC shooting scenario and thereafter based their entire sum of knowledge on it.

Certainly tells me something in regards to capabilities for separate and independent thought process.

Also makes me dream of "sheeples".

P.S. Believe the evidence.

P.P.S. Most high school plane geometry students could have informed one as to the exact "plane" in which the back of JFK's head had to be in order for a 6.5mm bullet to have created the elongated entrance through the skull of JFK which the autopsy surgeons found and measured.

Too bad all of these "shooters" never bothered to check out the actual evidence, they just may have learned something.

Guess that they were not "math majors" or President of the Mu Alpha Theta in school?

As in the vehicle speed, "Math Counts"!

P.P.P. S. It is also recognized as an "Established Fact" in virtually every court in the United States.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...berts&st=45

I can not believe Mr. Purvis' proposed scenario of events, despite his numerous attempts to convince otherwise. To me it ranks just slightly above the WC scenario, still, unbelievable.

-----------------------------------------------------

the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did.

-------------------------------------------------------

I do believe it was "Forest Gump" who coined the phrase "Stupid is as Stupid Does!"

I have no doubts that all of those who could not "stuff" the three shots into the WC's completely misrepresented timing, at least appreciate company in the rabbit hole maze.

Having never been to Finland, not to mention never attended schooling there, I can not speak of exactly how the educational system operates.

Here in the ole "bad" US of A educational system, we expect for someone to provide us with the correct information, if they expect us to in turn respond with the correct answers.

I might add, that those of us who have studied the political system to any extent, fully recognize and expect to be "lied" to by Politicians. Most of who are also lawyers.

And, the more wary/intelligent, are fully aware that they should not place a great deal of credence in anything which comes out of the mouth of them.

So, I will again ask? Exactly what form of idiot believed the WC and their "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" and thereafter based their entire sum of knowledge on three shots having been fired in less than 6 seconds?

And to expound on this, exactly what form of idiot would think that even the poorest/worst shooter to be found, could not have at least hit the Presidential Limo (which happens to be in excess of 20 feet in length as well as an excess of 6 feet in width), three out of three shots at ranges less than 100 yards. Even in the WC's diversionary 6-second time frame.

Most 12 year old boys down here in south MS could easily accomplish this!

Let me give all who bother to read, a "hint"!

Anytime that the WC devotes some 5-pages of circular reasoning (politician talk) to any subject matter within the WC, then one had best take a good look, as they are attempting to sell something which rates up there with the Titaninc.

It don't and won't float!

P.S. Just in case they did not know it, Superman truly can not fly, and I would not recommend that any of them attempt to do so from any tall buildings.

[Mike Williams]

Tom and I have just finished looking at his first shot scenario. I can also say that I very much look forward to stepping through each shot with him.

So far there is no reason to believe that he has not done his homework, as everything he has shared with me thus far looks very plausible.

There are many who do not understand ballistics, and prefer to go with what they "think".

A wise man once said that a truly intelligent man knows just how stupid he is.

I would be very careful in using the citations by Carlos and Craig. One of their biggest issues was the TIMING of the shots.

Tom,

I am looking very much forward to discussing the next shot. I do have a few questions about the first, but nothing that hampers its likely hood.

Well done!

Mike

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom and I have just finished looking at his first shot scenario. I can also say that I very much look forward to stepping through each shot with him.

So far there is no reason to believe that he has not done his homework, as everything he has shared with me thus far looks very plausible.

There are many who do not understand ballistics, and prefer to go with what they "think".

A wise man once said that a truly intelligent man knows just how stupid he is.

I would be very careful in using the citations by Carlos and Craig. One of their biggest issues was the TIMING of the shots.

Tom,

I am looking very much forward to discussing the next shot. I do have a few questions about the first, but nothing that hampers its likely hood.

Well done!

Mike

Tom and I have just finished looking at his first shot scenario.

Nah!

Whoever said we were "finished", lied!

There still remains the "good" part, as well as the "great" part.

[Mike Williams]

Tom and I have just finished looking at his first shot scenario. I can also say that I very much look forward to stepping through each shot with him.

So far there is no reason to believe that he has not done his homework, as everything he has shared with me thus far looks very plausible.

There are many who do not understand ballistics, and prefer to go with what they "think".

A wise man once said that a truly intelligent man knows just how stupid he is.

I would be very careful in using the citations by Carlos and Craig. One of their biggest issues was the TIMING of the shots.

Tom,

I am looking very much forward to discussing the next shot. I do have a few questions about the first, but nothing that hampers its likely hood.

Well done!

Mike

Tom and I have just finished looking at his first shot scenario.

Nah!

Whoever said we were "finished", lied!

There still remains the "good" part, as well as the "great" part.

Perhaps finished was the wrong term. However I am satisfied with what I have read so far. I have no issues from a ballistic standpoint!

Looking forward!

Cheers!

[Karl Kinaski]

The "hole in the windshield" was first mentioned by Hale Boggs in the WC Ex. session on December 16, 1963. Note: nobody answered: No, there is no hole. They knew: there was a hole. Later it became, surprise, surprise a " crack".

From a HOLE on Dec 16. 1963

To a CRACK without a perforation... on April 30. 1964...

[Mike Williams]

The "hole in the windshield" was first mentioned by Hale Boggs in the WC Ex. session on December 16, 1963. Note: nobody answered: No, there is no hole. They knew: there was a hole. Later it became, surprise, surprise a " crack".

From a HOLE on Dec 16. 1963

To a CRACK without a perforation... on April 30. 1964...

Karl,

Surprise surprise. There was no hole in Altgens, there was no hole at Parkland, and there was no hole at 1am in the WH garage. That is very clear.

Mike

[Pamela Brown]

The term 'hole' is not incorrect. It was a defect in the windshield. It was not, however, a 'through-and-through hole'.

In fact, there may be more than one defect on the windshield. James Hosty saw two pockmarks in the windshield when he viewed it prior to giving his WC testimony. Of course, I have tried to follow up on that by gaining access to the windshield at NARA, but so far have been denied access.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Mike Williams]

The term 'hole' is not incorrect. It was a defect in the windshield. It was not, however, a 'through-and-through hole'.

In fact, there may be more than one defect on the windshield. James Hosty saw two pockmarks in the windshield when he viewed it prior to giving his WC testimony. Of course, I have tried to follow up on that by gaining access to the windshield at NARA, but so far have been denied access.

Pamela,

Wholeheartedly agree. No hole and exactly as you say, Just a defect. The evidence supports nothing more.

Mike