Mike Williams Posted March 24, 2010 Author Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) Sir,I do not know the extent of your shooting experience, so it would be difficult for me to relate in words without expressed examples. However the recoil from a Carcano is very manageable. Reacquiring the target is a very quick process. Can you define "very quick" more precisely? Do you think it would take you less than 1 second or more than 1 second? Frazier fired three rounds and placed them in a .75" circle in 6 seconds. (WCH3p404)This should serve as some indication as to the ability to reacquire the target quickly. I believe there are several videos out there showing that the weapon can be cycled faster than 2.3 seconds. Frazier made one shot and then cycled the weapon 2 times and shot ACCURATELY in 6 seconds. I was under the impression that he did not duplicate the conditions of duress that the shooter would have been under, including, the use of a tripod. I believe that is correct. There is no presumption on my part in regard to the target moving away from the shooter. It is and has been solidly ballistically proven. Not if one of the shooters were in front. I would ask you Sir to please give me your best offering at evidence that shows the shooter was in front of the target. Where I come from we tend to rely on doctors to determine a great deal. No disrespect intended, but IMHO you have a lot of catching up to do. Best,Mike GO_SECURE monk Mr. Burnham, Unless the laws of physics have changed over the last few years, then the basic principles of ballistics still apply. I believe I already defined Quick in proving Frazier fired 3 very well aimed shots in 6 seconds. That sounds like an average of 3 seconds for the last two shots which included aiming and cycling the bolt. I would say that is pretty quick considering your theory that it takes 2.3 seconds to cycle the bolt without aiming (which I do not agree with). There are several videos that bear this out. Frazier used no tripod in the testing of the rifle at the ranges. I also believe you assume duress, it is impossible to know the state of mind of the shooter. There is no evidence whatsoever of a shooter from the front. Kinetic energy transfer indicates a rear shooter, as does Blood Spatter, inter-cranial fragment disbursement. You do realize that the "violent backward motion" can not possibly be attributed directly to a bullet. No disrespect taken Sir, not at all, and none intended when I say that I do not believe I need to catch up, I simply believe that many do not understand the ballistics and physics involved in a shooting event. Where I come from an opinion is an opinion, until it is proven, it then becomes fact. From a ballistic stand point the fact now stands at no frontal shooter. Do you have any other evidence other than the opinion of a doctor? Do you have a suspected location? I would be glad to examine that for you Sir. My best to you, Mike Edited March 24, 2010 by Mike Williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 No thanks, I'd prefer to avoid your analysis. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I don't believe you're approaching this very scientifically at all, no matter your expertise. I have yet to ever hear a serious analyst dismiss the medical evidence and/or the testimony of the attending physicians in a shooting case! I lack the patience to continue this train of thought with you. Good hunting-- eom Sir,I do not know the extent of your shooting experience, so it would be difficult for me to relate in words without expressed examples. However the recoil from a Carcano is very manageable. Reacquiring the target is a very quick process. Can you define "very quick" more precisely? Do you think it would take you less than 1 second or more than 1 second? Frazier fired three rounds and placed them in a .75" circle in 6 seconds. (WCH3p404)This should serve as some indication as to the ability to reacquire the target quickly. I believe there are several videos out there showing that the weapon can be cycled faster than 2.3 seconds. Frazier made one shot and then cycled the weapon 2 times and shot ACCURATELY in 6 seconds. I was under the impression that he did not duplicate the conditions of duress that the shooter would have been under, including, the use of a tripod. I believe that is correct. There is no presumption on my part in regard to the target moving away from the shooter. It is and has been solidly ballistically proven. Not if one of the shooters were in front. I would ask you Sir to please give me your best offering at evidence that shows the shooter was in front of the target. Where I come from we tend to rely on doctors to determine a great deal. No disrespect intended, but IMHO you have a lot of catching up to do. Best,Mike GO_SECURE monk Mr. Burnham, Unless the laws of physics have changed over the last few years, then the basic principles of ballistics still apply. I believe I already defined Quick in proving Frazier fired 3 very well aimed shots in 6 seconds. That sounds like an average of 3 seconds for the last two shots which included aiming and cycling the bolt. I would say that is pretty quick considering your theory that it takes 2.3 seconds to cycle the bolt without aiming (which I do not agree with). There are several videos that bear this out. Frazier used no tripod in the testing of the rifle at the ranges. I also believe you assume duress, it is impossible to know the state of mind of the shooter. There is no evidence whatsoever of a shooter from the front. Kinetic energy transfer indicates a rear shooter, as does Blood Spatter, inter-cranial fragment disbursement. You do realize that the "violent backward motion" can not possibly be attributed directly to a bullet. No disrespect taken Sir, not at all, and none intended when I say that I do not believe I need to catch up, I simply believe that many do not understand the ballistics and physics involved in a shooting event. Where I come from an opinion is an opinion, until it is proven, it then becomes fact. From a ballistic stand point the fact now stands at no frontal shooter. Do you have any other evidence other than the opinion of a doctor? Do you have a suspected location? I would be glad to examine that for you Sir. My best to you, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted March 25, 2010 Author Share Posted March 25, 2010 Mr. Burnham, I would suggest to you that I look at this very scientifically. I offer you known trajectory, blood spatter, debris inside the body, kinetic energy transfer, and a host of other things we can see for ourselves, and not at all have to rely upon the opinion of a physician. As I said early on, I prefer to make my own educated conclusions rather than base my conclusions on the work of other. An example would be Dr Perry and his complete reversal at the WC saying that all things considered it could have been an exit at the throat. The fact of the matter is he was not sure either way. That is evident. It is unfortunate that you have disengaged this discussion, I feel I may have had something to offer you in the way of perspective. Whoa there hold on. I just reread your post to me. Did you really say that I disregard the medical evidence? Tell you what. What is your best piece of medical evidence of a shot from the front? Im talking evidence Mr. Burnham,not testimony. I would also ask you what you would expect to see if a shot from the front had happened. How do you feel the body would have been moved by the projectile. If you still wish to disengage that is fine. I understand completely. My best to you Sir, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Mike...Monk is a policeman. He knows firearms.Jack Well, that's not exactly correct, Jack--but you didn't know. Since 2006, I now have a career in Real Estate with my wife. GO_SECURE monk Glad to get that news. But you WERE a policeman. Too bad about the Chargers selling off LaDanien. He has a few good years left, just like Drew Brees, who after being sold off by the Chargers only went on to win the Super Bowl! Maybe LT can do the same for New York! Best to you and wife in your new career! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 (edited) Why is Kennedy propelled backward at the moment that Zapruder shows overt skull damage, while his wife beside him is not moved, yet Connally is propelled forward? Mike, do you believe we are looking at an untampered piece of film evidence in Zapruder? Edited March 25, 2010 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Thanks Jack. Yeah, AJ Smith (Chargers' GM) has a reputation of acquiring great talent--and then growing weary of them prematurely. We can add Junior Seau to the list of super stars he has released too early, since Junior got his first Super Bowl ring with the Patriots after leaving San Diego. Go figure! Anyway, I have to depart the absurdity of this thread -- forever. I'm paranoid I might get some of it on me, like a rash that won't wash off... GO_SECURE monk Mike...Monk is a policeman. He knows firearms.Jack Well, that's not exactly correct, Jack--but you didn't know. Since 2006, I now have a career in Real Estate with my wife. GO_SECURE monk Glad to get that news. But you WERE a policeman. Too bad about the Chargers selling off LaDanien. He has a few good years left, just like Drew Brees, who after being sold off by the Chargers only went on to win the Super Bowl! Maybe LT can do the same for New York! Best to you and wife in your new career! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 The pipes. Mr. White, Thank you for that photo, that is one I did not have. I believe at one time we got off on the wrong foot. This was a few years ago, and I do not even suspect you remember. I do offer my apologies Sir, there was more to it than met the eye. I hope you can accept that as I look forward to discussing issues with you, and learning from your wealth of information. Best to you Sir, Mike Mike, Having seen the photo of the window from the sniper's position, pipes and all, we can assume that the gunman was in a kneeling position, similar to the photo of Oswald in the USMC kneeling at the end of a line of marines at rifle practice. Would everyone agree to that assumption? And if that is true, does that have an effect on the sniper's precision? What would be the cause of the slight pause in the shooting between the first and second shots? And while we can't predict what a projectile will do after it hits something, what would cause two bullets of the same type, presumably from the same batch - to have such a radically different result - the magic bullet, which hit Connally's bones and fractured them, yet stayed in pristine condition, and the head bullet, that fractured into a dozen or more pieces? Or were they different types of bullets? And Mike, Thanks for sticking around, BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 I hadn't seen Mike Williams post for a while. I thnk we had these kinds of debates a few years ago. Monk made the points I would have, and I certainly couldn't have said it any better. It's hard to take someone seriously who says there is no evidence of a shot from the front. The majority of witnesses identified shots coming from the general knoll area, film footage shows nearly all crowd (including police) attention was to that area in the aftermath of the shooting, JFK's head is propelled violently backwards following the head shot, a piece of skull bone from the back of his head was later found in the grass, motorcycle office Hargis was splattered with blood and brain matter (riding to the rear of the limousine), every doctor and nurse who examined the president at Parkland reported a huge hole in the back of his head, the initial description (and obviously the most relevant one) of the throat wound by Dr. Perry indicated it was one of entrance, etc. I could go on and on, but like Monk, it's tiresome to go over this same debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted March 25, 2010 Author Share Posted March 25, 2010 Why is Kennedy propelled backward at the moment that Zapruder shows overt skull damage, while his wife beside him is not moved, yet Connally is propelled forward?Mike, do you believe we are looking at an untampered piece of film evidence in Zapruder? Mr. Andrews, A pleasure to meet you Sir. I can honestly say that I have no clue why he is propelled rearward. I suppose I could speculate, and offer nothing more than anyone already has by way of neural reactions, muscular etc etc. What i can tell you is it is not the impact of a projectile. A projectile that perforates a target only imparts .1-.3% of its energy to that target. So. A 30-06 firing at 2600fps would impact with 2298 ft lbs of energy at 100 yards. This means if the bullet transits that only .1-.3% or 2.298ft lbs to 6.89 ft lbs of energy would be transferred. An average human punch is 110 ft lbs. So you see Sir it is impossible that a transiting bullet caused that violent rearward reaction. Best to you, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted March 25, 2010 Author Share Posted March 25, 2010 Thanks Jack. Yeah, AJ Smith (Chargers' GM) has a reputation of acquiring great talent--and then growing weary of them prematurely. We can add Junior Seau to the list of super stars he has released too early, since Junior got his first Super Bowl ring with the Patriots after leaving San Diego. Go figure!Anyway, I have to depart the absurdity of this thread -- forever. I'm paranoid I might get some of it on me, like a rash that won't wash off... GO_SECURE monk Mike...Monk is a policeman. He knows firearms.Jack Well, that's not exactly correct, Jack--but you didn't know. Since 2006, I now have a career in Real Estate with my wife. GO_SECURE monk Glad to get that news. But you WERE a policeman. Too bad about the Chargers selling off LaDanien. He has a few good years left, just like Drew Brees, who after being sold off by the Chargers only went on to win the Super Bowl! Maybe LT can do the same for New York! Best to you and wife in your new career! Jack Mr. Burnham, I figured that was coming. I would depart as well if I had your untenable position. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted March 25, 2010 Author Share Posted March 25, 2010 The pipes. Mr. White, Thank you for that photo, that is one I did not have. I believe at one time we got off on the wrong foot. This was a few years ago, and I do not even suspect you remember. I do offer my apologies Sir, there was more to it than met the eye. I hope you can accept that as I look forward to discussing issues with you, and learning from your wealth of information. Best to you Sir, Mike Mike, Having seen the photo of the window from the sniper's position, pipes and all, we can assume that the gunman was in a kneeling position, similar to the photo of Oswald in the USMC kneeling at the end of a line of marines at rifle practice. Would everyone agree to that assumption? And if that is true, does that have an effect on the sniper's precision? What would be the cause of the slight pause in the shooting between the first and second shots? And while we can't predict what a projectile will do after it hits something, what would cause two bullets of the same type, presumably from the same batch - to have such a radically different result - the magic bullet, which hit Connally's bones and fractured them, yet stayed in pristine condition, and the head bullet, that fractured into a dozen or more pieces? Or were they different types of bullets? And Mike, Thanks for sticking around, BK Mr. Kelly, I do believe that the kneeling position was by and large the only option, unless sitting on the floor. That sill is awful close to the floor, even sitting on a box would seem to be an awkward shooting position. The kneeling position is quite stable, especially if one is resting his rifle on the sill or a box. However given the short distance of the shots I would say that neither is required. The pause, well Sir it is my honest opinion that CE543 is our answer. It is very obviously dented from a short cycle condition. This is when we fire a round, and pull the bolt back but not fully, the shell extracts but does not eject. When we then go to run the bolt forward, since there is no longer a tapered projectile to guide the round up the ramp and into the chamber, the front of the casing hits the chamber bevel and dents it. I have seen this countless times. All that is required to correct this condition is to pull the bolt rearward again and insure the shell ejects. The simply slide the bolt forward with a fresh round and keep firing. Sir, in regard to the difference in results from the rounds. I honestly have to tell you I do not know. I am not convinced in the SBT at all, and find it very difficult to believe that bullet broke bone and came out near pristine. I just do not buy that. As for sticking around, it is most certainly my pleasure, I consider myself in good company! Best Sir, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 The way I see it is that the principles of ballistics can be applied to any scenario so there's not really a need to line up on a side on the medical issue. Mike, I trust you will continue to deal with the ballistics of the MC, the constraints the shooter faced (in this instance from the snipers nest), all the factors to consider, and an evaluation of whether someone with Lee Oswalds grading could reasonably expect success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted March 25, 2010 Author Share Posted March 25, 2010 I hadn't seen Mike Williams post for a while. I thnk we had these kinds of debates a few years ago. Monk made the points I would have, and I certainly couldn't have said it any better. It's hard to take someone seriously who says there is no evidence of a shot from the front. The majority of witnesses identified shots coming from the general knoll area, film footage shows nearly all crowd (including police) attention was to that area in the aftermath of the shooting, JFK's head is propelled violently backwards following the head shot, a piece of skull bone from the back of his head was later found in the grass, motorcycle office Hargis was splattered with blood and brain matter (riding to the rear of the limousine), every doctor and nurse who examined the president at Parkland reported a huge hole in the back of his head, the initial description (and obviously the most relevant one) of the throat wound by Dr. Perry indicated it was one of entrance, etc. I could go on and on, but like Monk, it's tiresome to go over this same debate. Mr Jefferies, Yes it has been some time. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that the xrays are forged? Do you believe the left side of the head was damaged? Do you realize that at 12 mph a 1/2 ounce piece of matter would strike with over 2 lbs of force? I would think the cycles rode through the debris field considering the Motorcade was moving at about 11 feet per second. I already addressed the impossibility of the backward movement from a projectile in another post in this thread. I prefer to let the science tell me what happened and look for witnesses to corroborate that. I find it difficult to take anyone serious that claims to have proof of a shot from the front. If something significant surfaces please let me know. Mr. Jefferies it is a pleasure to see you again, we do not always agree but I do enjoy our exchanges. Best to you Sir, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted March 25, 2010 Author Share Posted March 25, 2010 The way I see it is that the principles of ballistics can be applied to any scenario so there's not really a need to line up on a side on the medical issue. Mike, I trust you will continue to deal with the ballistics of the MC, the constraints the shooter faced (in this instance from the snipers nest), all the factors to consider, and an evaluation of whether someone with Lee Oswalds grading could reasonably expect success. Mr. Dolva, Yes Sir I certainly will. Per our earlier conversation I am already working on the graphics and sizing of the rifle and window. Should have this little project ready for you sometime tomorrow. I am off work and have the honey do list to attend to lol. Best to you Sir, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Greg, Fascinating. Leaving this "absurdity", in order to rush in to join Fetzer/Judyth instead? Mike, I can only say that I am too, glad you're stickin' around. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now