Help with the back wound please

[Mike Williams]

Hey Mike,

Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?

Martin

Martin,

Absolutely unequivocally YES.

Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.

Mike,

As a point of logic, you are speaking of "shots" as though that terminology [as you infer it to mean] is relevant to this discussion! In other words, it is a circular argument. Your conclusion includes "facts not in evidence" outside of the original inquiry, yet incorporates them within your conclusion as though they were arrived at independently from the original debate.

Are you relying on medical/wound forensics at all? Are you considering eyewitness and earwitness testimony at all? It appears that you are not including data in your analysis that in any way might challenge your pre-determined conclusions.

Mr Burnham,

Witness testimony to me will ALWAYS take a back seat to hard fact. The shape and size of the wounds coupled with the angle of said wounds through the victims clearly allows for a reverse trajectory to be plotted. This reverse trajectory initially was used to eliminate shooting positions. Such as. If the impact angle and the angle of entry were to represent 45* then we know the shooter has to be the same height above the target as the distance horizontally between the target and the shooter. This eliminates shooting positions.

However in this instance the trajectory data is quite conclusive.

But then again it has been said I am not very scientific

Best to you SIR,

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Hey Mike,

Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?

Martin

Martin,

Absolutely unequivocally YES.

Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.

Mr. Mike,

A statement and a few more questions.

Since Oswald can't be placed within that 20" circle in the 6th floor window in the TSBD at the time of the assassination 12:30 PMCST, as he has an alibi - being on the second floor at the time, do you think the Sixth Floor Sniper, whoever he was, do you think he was a local Texan hillbilly loser hick who got lucky, or do you think he was a highly paid, well trained and competent clandestine covert operative who killed on assignment before and has done so since? Was the sniper a hillbilly or jackal?

And if you insist on Oswald being the Sixth floor sniper, do you think he suddenly decided to kill the President because he was given the opportunity and was mad at Marina or did he plan it out in advance and get the job at the TSBD and set up the Sniper's Nest and carry out a plan he thought of in advance. If Oswald was the sniper, was he a hillbilly or a jackal?

And as part of official US military sniper's training, are you trained on how to protect yourself in the Sniper's Nest and how to get out of there after the job's done?

Thanks for your knowing and honest response,

Bill Kelly

Mr. Kelly,

I have my issues with LHO being our man quite frankly. The evidence against him is circumstantial at best, and inadmissible at worst.

My very honest opinion is this is NOT a professional shooter. If it had been there would have been a single round fired. Game. Set. match.

I would not even presume to surmise what Oswald would do. The boy had issues that is sure enough, but to what I am not qualified to give any better guess than anyone else.

In normal operations we have a spotter, he is our security, and is generally armed with an m4 or some variant. We also have a pistol. Basically the snipers best security is a damn good "hide", his own ability to enter and leave an area undetected, and his insistence that one shot be fired.

Think if you will about a bird in your back yard chirping. If he chirps just once we often cant locate him, however if he continues to chirp he is soon located, and so it is with a sniper. One shot, then relocate.

One of the main things in considering location is escape. This is and should always be preplanned.

Best to you SIR,

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Hey Mike,

Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?

Martin

Martin,

Absolutely unequivocally YES.

Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.

Mike,

As a point of logic, you are speaking of "shots" as though that terminology [as you infer it to mean] is relevant to this discussion! In other words, it is a circular argument. Your conclusion includes "facts not in evidence" outside of the original inquiry, yet incorporates them within your conclusion as though they were arrived at independently from the original debate.

Are you relying on medical/wound forensics at all? Are you considering eyewitness and earwitness testimony at all? It appears that you are not including data in your analysis that in any way might challenge your pre-determined conclusions.

Greg,

This entire discussion is based on the illogical assumption that improperly

prepared medical evidence (the autopsy photos, the notations on the autopsy

face sheet written in pen) trump properly prepared medical evidence

(Burkley's death certificate, the autopsy face sheet notations written in pencil).

These assumptions also ignore the physical evidence of the "low" back wound indicated

by the bullet holes in the clothes, the sworn testimony of a half-dozen Federal agents and

the statements of more than a half-dozen witnesses among the Bethesda staff -- all of

whom put the back wound in the vicinity of T3.

The HSCA pathology panel concluded the back wound was "high" on the basis

of the Fox 5 autopsy photo, which Mike put into evidence up-thread.

Here's what they also said about the autopsy photos (emphasis added),

from Vol. 7 of the HSCA report:

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series of

negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The deficiencies

of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have

been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that it is nearly

impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were positioned

in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of

critical features (such as the wound in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim; such as his name,

the autopsy case number, the date and place of the examination.

What a scam the HSCA pulled! Their conclusion on the "high" back wound

was based on a "deficient" photograph of such poor quality that accurate

measurements were "difficult or impossible to obtain."

By what tortured logic is such inferior evidence deemed dispositive?

To render the autopsy photos even more unreliable, the woman on record as having

developed the extant autopsy photos, Saundra Kay Spender, testified before the ARRB

and insisted the extant autopsy photos were not the ones she developed.

From the ARRB deposition of Saundra Kay Spencer, June 5, 1997:

Q: Ms. Spencer, you have now had an opportunity to view all of the colored images,

both transparencies and prints, that are in the possession of the National Archives

related to the autopsy of President Kennedy.

Based upon your knowledge, are there any images of the autopsy of President Kennedy

that are not included in the set you have just seen?

A: The views that we produced at the (Naval) Photographic Center are not included.

Q: Ms. Spencer, how certain are you that there were other photographs of President

Kennedy's autopsy that are not included in the set you've just seen?

A: I can personally say they are not included...

...I had brought along a photograph that was produced approximately 10 days prior

to the time that we printed the autopsy photographs that we produced at NPC, and

because of the watermark and stuff on it does not match those that I viewed, and NPC

bought all of a run, which meant that every piece of paper within the house would

have the same identical watermark and logo on it. I can say that the paper was not

a piece of paper that was processed or printed out of the Photographic Center within

that time frame.

There was obviously no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos,

a well-ignored fact in these parts.

By what stretch of logic does anyone draw conclusions on the basis of poor quality,

improperly prepared photographs for which there is no chain of possession, or any

evidence whatsoever that the subject of the photo was JFK?

There are some of us that do not hold that every thing is faked forged or altered.

[Cliff Varnell]

Witness testimony to me will ALWAYS take a back seat to hard fact. The shape and size of the wounds coupled with the angle of said wounds through the victims clearly allows for a reverse trajectory to be plotted.

Hard fact: the bullet hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the jacket collar,

a location consistent with an in-shoot about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.

Hard fact: more than a dozen witnesses placed the back wound in the vicinity of the

third thoracic vertebra or lower.

Hard fact: two pieces of properly prepared medical evidence -- Burkley's

death certificate and Boswell's autopsy face sheet diagram -- were both

signed off as "verified" and both indicated the back wound was "about the level of

the third thoracic vertebra."

Hard fact: the 7mm X 4mm measurement written on the autopsy face sheet

was written in pen, a violation of proper military autopsy protocol which

dictates that measurements must be recorded in pencil.

Fact takes a back seat to unreliable evidence in this discussion, I'm afraid.

[Cliff Varnell]

There are some of us that do not hold that every thing is faked forged or altered.

I didn't say "everything was faked or forged."

On the contrary, it is YOU who disputes every witness to the back wound,

who disputes the physical evidence found in the clothing defects, who disputes

reliable evidence in favor of the patently unreliable.

Did the Dozen plus witnesses all suffer the same hallucination, Mike?

How do you account for the location of the bullet defects in the clothes?

I simply point out that there is medical evidence which was not prepared according

to proper autopsy protocol, and there is evidence which WAS prepared according to

proper autopsy protocol.

You and others insist that the improperly prepared medical evidence

TRUMPS the properly prepared medical evidence.

There is no logic to this conclusion of yours whatsoever.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Mike Williams]

Witness testimony to me will ALWAYS take a back seat to hard fact. The shape and size of the wounds coupled with the angle of said wounds through the victims clearly allows for a reverse trajectory to be plotted.

Hard fact: the bullet hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the jacket collar,

a location consistent with an in-shoot about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.

Hard fact: more than a dozen witnesses placed the back wound in the vicinity of the

third thoracic vertebra or lower.

Hard fact: two pieces of properly prepared medical evidence -- Burkley's

death certificate and Boswell's autopsy face sheet diagram -- were both

signed off as "verified" and both indicated the back wound was "about the level of

the third thoracic vertebra."

Hard fact: the 7mm X 4mm measurement written on the autopsy face sheet

was written in pen, a violation of proper military autopsy protocol which

dictates that measurements must be recorded in pencil.

Fact takes a back seat to unreliable evidence in this discussion, I'm afraid.

Cliff,

I am not arguing any of that! I am simply saying I do not think there was any alteration or forgery. Yes I do think there were errors.

You look at those pictures posted earlier and tell me which you think they are trying to measure, the upper or the lower wound?

I have seen, with my own eyes, more gunshot wounds than I care to and that bottom one is a text book bullet wound in my honest opinion.

Further Martin there seems to have proven it measures almost exactly as is recorded.

I hate to say it Cliff, but this may be one I have to agree with you on.

Oh yea, Do not know that we have posted to E/O before so it is a pleasure to meet you Sir!

I hope you are having a fantastic night.

Mike

[Greg Burnham]

Points very well taken, Cliff. Well done!

[Greg Burnham]

Hey Mike,

Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?

Martin

Martin,

Absolutely unequivocally YES.

Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.

Mr. Mike,

A statement and a few more questions.

Since Oswald can't be placed within that 20" circle in the 6th floor window in the TSBD at the time of the assassination 12:30 PMCST, as he has an alibi - being on the second floor at the time, do you think the Sixth Floor Sniper, whoever he was, do you think he was a local Texan hillbilly loser hick who got lucky, or do you think he was a highly paid, well trained and competent clandestine covert operative who killed on assignment before and has done so since? Was the sniper a hillbilly or jackal?

And if you insist on Oswald being the Sixth floor sniper, do you think he suddenly decided to kill the President because he was given the opportunity and was mad at Marina or did he plan it out in advance and get the job at the TSBD and set up the Sniper's Nest and carry out a plan he thought of in advance. If Oswald was the sniper, was he a hillbilly or a jackal?

And as part of official US military sniper's training, are you trained on how to protect yourself in the Sniper's Nest and how to get out of there after the job's done?

Thanks for your knowing and honest response,

Bill Kelly

Mr. Kelly,

I have my issues with LHO being our man quite frankly. The evidence against him is circumstantial at best, and inadmissible at worst.

My very honest opinion is this is NOT a professional shooter. If it had been there would have been a single round fired. Game. Set. match.

I would not even presume to surmise what Oswald would do. The boy had issues that is sure enough, but to what I am not qualified to give any better guess than anyone else.

In normal operations we have a spotter, he is our security, and is generally armed with an m4 or some variant. We also have a pistol. Basically the snipers best security is a damn good "hide", his own ability to enter and leave an area undetected, and his insistence that one shot be fired.

Think if you will about a bird in your back yard chirping. If he chirps just once we often cant locate him, however if he continues to chirp he is soon located, and so it is with a sniper. One shot, then relocate.

One of the main things in considering location is escape. This is and should always be preplanned.

Best to you SIR,

Mike

This is the first post you have made that I agree with almost 100%-- But, it does bring us back to the sniper's nest. Even if we agree that LHO as the sniper was an unlikely scenario, what about that location? This is not a point of probable extraction, by any stretch of the imagination, for anyone under the circumstances. Moreover, if the TSBD sniper (if there was one) was an amateur as you postulate, HOW DID HE GET OUT UN-MOLESTED in the aftermath?

[Mike Williams]

Hey Mike,

Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?

Martin

Martin,

Absolutely unequivocally YES.

Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.

Mr. Mike,

A statement and a few more questions.

Since Oswald can't be placed within that 20" circle in the 6th floor window in the TSBD at the time of the assassination 12:30 PMCST, as he has an alibi - being on the second floor at the time, do you think the Sixth Floor Sniper, whoever he was, do you think he was a local Texan hillbilly loser hick who got lucky, or do you think he was a highly paid, well trained and competent clandestine covert operative who killed on assignment before and has done so since? Was the sniper a hillbilly or jackal?

And if you insist on Oswald being the Sixth floor sniper, do you think he suddenly decided to kill the President because he was given the opportunity and was mad at Marina or did he plan it out in advance and get the job at the TSBD and set up the Sniper's Nest and carry out a plan he thought of in advance. If Oswald was the sniper, was he a hillbilly or a jackal?

And as part of official US military sniper's training, are you trained on how to protect yourself in the Sniper's Nest and how to get out of there after the job's done?

Thanks for your knowing and honest response,

Bill Kelly

Mr. Kelly,

I have my issues with LHO being our man quite frankly. The evidence against him is circumstantial at best, and inadmissible at worst.

My very honest opinion is this is NOT a professional shooter. If it had been there would have been a single round fired. Game. Set. match.

I would not even presume to surmise what Oswald would do. The boy had issues that is sure enough, but to what I am not qualified to give any better guess than anyone else.

In normal operations we have a spotter, he is our security, and is generally armed with an m4 or some variant. We also have a pistol. Basically the snipers best security is a damn good "hide", his own ability to enter and leave an area undetected, and his insistence that one shot be fired.

Think if you will about a bird in your back yard chirping. If he chirps just once we often cant locate him, however if he continues to chirp he is soon located, and so it is with a sniper. One shot, then relocate.

One of the main things in considering location is escape. This is and should always be preplanned.

Best to you SIR,

Mike

This is the first post you have made that I agree with almost 100%-- But, it does bring us back to the sniper's nest. Even if we agree that LHO as the sniper was an unlikely scenario, what about that location? This is not a point of probable extraction, by any stretch of the imagination, for anyone under the circumstances. Moreover, if the TSBD sniper (if there was one) was an amateur as you postulate, HOW DID HE GET OUT UN-MOLESTED in the aftermath?

Greg,

There is no postulation. I am a professional shooter. Had this been the work of a professional shooter it would have been one shot. Escape would have been much simpler, as i doubt his location would have been identified any where near as quickly. (A professional would not have the damn rifle sticking out of the window!). I never did agree that LHO was the sniper. I said the facts are , what the facts are. Circumstantial at best. I do not in anyway believe he was incapable of this shooting. These shots were less than 100 yards. This is easy pickins as it were.

I would suspect that he got out unmolested because he fit in. He was not out of place in that area. This does nothing to help the LHO cause.

Best to you!

Mike

[Mike Williams]

There are some of us that do not hold that every thing is faked forged or altered.

I didn't say "everything was faked or forged."

On the contrary, it is YOU who disputes every witness to the back wound,

who disputes the physical evidence found in the clothing defects, who disputes

reliable evidence in favor of the patently unreliable.

Did the Dozen plus witnesses all suffer the same hallucination, Mike?

How do you account for the location of the bullet defects in the clothes?

I simply point out that there is medical evidence which was not prepared according

to proper autopsy protocol, and there is evidence which WAS prepared according to

proper autopsy protocol.

You and others insist that the improperly prepared medical evidence

TRUMPS the properly prepared medical evidence.

There is no logic to this conclusion of yours whatsoever.

Cliff,

Whoa there cowboy. Who was disputing the evidence? I believe I posted this in an effort to discern evidence.

Where did I dispute testimony?

I have insisted nothing.

I believe the holes in the clothing and the wounds present a clear and evident path, to one that knows how to follow the trail.

Mike

[John Dolva]

''Greg,

There is no postulation. I am a professional shooter. Had this been the work of a professional shooter it would have been one shot. Escape would have been much simpler, as i doubt his location would have been identified any where near as quickly. (A professional would not have the damn rifle sticking out of the window!). I never did agree that LHO was the sniper. I said the facts are , what the facts are. Circumstantial at best. I do not in anyway believe he was incapable of this shooting. These shots were less than 100 yards. This is easy pickins as it were.

I would suspect that he got out unmolested because he fit in. He was not out of place in that area. This does nothing to help the LHO cause.

Best to you!

Mike''

(A professional would not have the damn rifle sticking out of the window!) - EXACTLY!

If it was from the 6th floor window it was with the sniper standing behind the pipes, but according to witnesses it was not so.

However, imo, the point is not to help the LHO cause, whatever that may be, but to prove to satisfaction that there was no conspiracy. That has not been done.

At the same time, if you haven't the training and a cutdown rifle, with unpredictable behaviour, a scope out of alignment, it might be easy pickins for a pro, but LHO can hardly be said to coming close to being that? What about a pro who sets it up so that it doesn't look like a pro, wouldn't that be even more pro?

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

There is no postulation. I am a professional shooter.

No that is not correct. You are postulating irrespective of your profession.

Had this been the work of a professional shooter it would have been one shot.

That's almost clever. Your argument then follows this path: "Since it took more than one shot, it was not the work of a professional shooter (or shooters), and therefore was not a conspiracy" -- (afterall, who would conspire to hire amateurs to kill the POTUS?)

Sorry, not good enough. I play chess, too.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Cliff Varnell]

Mr. Kelly,

I have my issues with LHO being our man quite frankly. The evidence against him is circumstantial at best, and inadmissible at worst.

My very honest opinion is this is NOT a professional shooter. If it had been there would have been a single round fired. Game. Set. match.

Mike, I deeply respect your expertise in this area and I'd be the last

person to challenge you generally on this subject.

However, consider this: the plotters of the assassination could not be

100% sure that the shooters -- who were committing high treason and

murder and had never shot at an American President -- would not be just a

bit nervous. If JFK were merely winged on the first shot he might hit the

floor.

They could not discount this contingency 100%.

I submit they took no chances. They had access to the most

modern technology -- blood soluble paralytics and toxins.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

There is evidence that a shooter on the 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex Building

fired a blood soluble round.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=15516&hl=

There were few misses in the JFK assassination, imo.

The first shot likely struck him in the throat with a blood soluble paralytic -- the

Zapruder film shows him seizing up paralyzed in roughly two seconds circa

Z190 to Z230. This is consistent with the CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics.

Immediately after the autopsy the prosectors huddled together and

arrived at a "general feeling" that JFK was struck with blood souble

rounds.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

The second shot was a blood soluble toxin fired from the Dal-Tex (or so I'd speculate).

It was a kill shot, just to the right of midline about the level of the third thoracic

vertebra.

The head shots came from a triangulation of fire (or so I'd speculate). They didn't miss.

3 hits. The head wound evidence is so conflicted and tainted it doesn't get you anywhere

trying to figure it out.

I would not even presume to surmise what Oswald would do. The boy had issues that is sure enough, but to what I am not qualified to give any better guess than anyone else.

In normal operations we have a spotter, he is our security, and is generally armed with an m4 or some variant. We also have a pistol. Basically the snipers best security is a damn good "hide", his own ability to enter and leave an area undetected, and his insistence that one shot be fired.

Think if you will about a bird in your back yard chirping. If he chirps just once we often cant locate him, however if he continues to chirp he is soon located, and so it is with a sniper. One shot, then relocate.

One of the main things in considering location is escape. This is and should always be preplanned.

Best to you SIR,

Mike

And this is exactly what happened. The first shot came circa Z190 fired from Black Dog

Man.

How do we know?

Because Rosemary Willis and the Willis 5 photograph strongly indicate as much.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

According to the HSCA analysis of the Willis 5 photo (below) Black Dog Man had

"near the region of his hands...'a very distinct straight-line feature.'"

According to Rosemary Willis Black Dog Man was a "conspicuous" person who

happened to "disappear the next instant."

In the Zapruder film we can see at what point "the next instant" occurred:

at Z214-17 Rosemary does a rapid head-snap in the direction of Black Dog Man.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

Black Dog Man took one shot and was out of there in less then a second.

The damage to JFK's neck as shown in the neck x-ray is also consistent

with the conclusion that he was struck with a blood soluble paralytic in

the throat.

The round nicked his trachea, bruised the tip of his lung, left a hairline

fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an airpocket overlaying

C7 and T1. Minor soft tissue damage, no exit, no round recovered.

Same with the back wound: shallow, no exit, no round recovered.

The simplest explanation carries the day -- the autopsists got it right

the night of the autopsy:

Two wounds. No exits. No rounds recovered. Blood solubles.

This is the first post you have made that I agree with almost 100%-- But, it does bring us back to the sniper's nest. Even if we agree that LHO as the sniper was an unlikely scenario, what about that location? This is not a point of probable extraction, by any stretch of the imagination, for anyone under the circumstances. Moreover, if the TSBD sniper (if there was one) was an amateur as you postulate, HOW DID HE GET OUT UN-MOLESTED in the aftermath?

Greg,

There is no postulation. I am a professional shooter. Had this been the work of a professional shooter it would have been one shot. Escape would have been much simpler, as i doubt his location would have been identified any where near as quickly. (A professional would not have the damn rifle sticking out of the window!). I never did agree that LHO was the sniper. I said the facts are , what the facts are. Circumstantial at best. I do not in anyway believe he was incapable of this shooting. These shots were less than 100 yards. This is easy pickins as it were.

I would suspect that he got out unmolested because he fit in. He was not out of place in that area. This does nothing to help the LHO cause.

Best to you!

Mike

"A professional would not have the damn rifle sticking out of the window!"

On the contrary, good sir! If setting up patsies were one's profession and one wanted

to establish shots from the patsy's "sniper's nest" then wouldn't one have someone hold

the rifle out the window and fire 3 rounds into the blank spaces in Dealey Plaza just to

establish the official "shooter" location?

None of the 3 shots fired from the "Oswald sniper nest" hit anything, imo, other

than perhaps Tague.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Mike Williams]

''Greg,

There is no postulation. I am a professional shooter. Had this been the work of a professional shooter it would have been one shot. Escape would have been much simpler, as i doubt his location would have been identified any where near as quickly. (A professional would not have the damn rifle sticking out of the window!). I never did agree that LHO was the sniper. I said the facts are , what the facts are. Circumstantial at best. I do not in anyway believe he was incapable of this shooting. These shots were less than 100 yards. This is easy pickins as it were.

I would suspect that he got out unmolested because he fit in. He was not out of place in that area. This does nothing to help the LHO cause.

Best to you!

Mike''

(A professional would not have the damn rifle sticking out of the window!) - EXACTLY!

If it was from the 6th floor window it was with the sniper standing behind the pipes, but according to witnesses it was not so.

However, imo, the point is not to help the LHO cause, whatever that may be, but to prove to satisfaction that there was no conspiracy. That has not been done.

At the same time, if you haven't the training and a cutdown rifle, with unpredictable behaviour, a scope out of alignment, it might be easy pickins for a pro, but LHO can hardly be said to coming close to being that? What about a pro who sets it up so that it doesn't look like a pro, wouldn't that be even more pro?

John,

I am not sure what you mean by unpredictable behavior. Frazier managed 3 shots inside a 3/4" circle in 6 seconds. That seems pretty good to me. Oswald had the ability to make the shots, that is rather well documented, however this does not mean of course that he did make the shots. A pro setting this up to look like a non pro is something that just does not make sense to me at all. Why take more shots than needed and give away your location? Why do so while using a place that would be difficult to extract from if you were to be out of place there? This makes no sense to me.

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Greg,

There is no postulation. I am a professional shooter.

No that is not correct. You are postulating irrespective of your profession.

Had this been the work of a professional shooter it would have been one shot.

That's almost clever. Your argument then follows this path: "Since it took more than one shot, it was not the work of a professional shooter (or shooters), and therefore was not a conspiracy" -- (afterall, who would conspire to hire amateurs to kill the POTUS?)

Sorry, not good enough. I play chess, too.

Mr. Burnham,

Might I suggest sticking to checkers. I frankly do not care if it was a conspiracy or not. My interest is in the how, not the who. The who is pure speculation, the how is not.

The argument does not follow that path. The argument follows the path that since it was not a professional shooter, it had to have been an amateur. Seems logical to me.

Mike