Jump to content
The Education Forum

Another Look at the Shooting


Recommended Posts

Michael, you're pulling the same crap here that you do in the other forum. I NEVER said or even implied that the early shots were fired from a high powered rifle. I said the shots were subsonic and there is no certainty that they came from any kind of rifle.

Why do I have to spend more time untangling your deliberate misrepresentations than I do discussing the issues, when I debate with you??

Robert,

All one has to do is watch your video to know this is not true. You specifically go into great detail about assembling a rifle before hand and all the issues (as you perceive them) with using a silencer. You even specifically quote an article in which the author talks about some of the inherent issues with rifle suppressors. Not one single time is there ever the mention of the word pistol in your video, and also at no time is there the mention of the word subsonic. This is in both parts 1 and 2.

So what words did you use?

Lets have a look.

Sniper 6 times

Shot 25+ times

GUN shot 10 times

Rifle 6+ times

You use the phrase "No assassin would would enter the plaza with a fully assembled rifle"

And last but not least the article which you reference is titled:

hprs.gif

Yep you guessed it.

"The use of sound suppressors on HIGH POWERED RIFLES"

You tell us now that you never said the shots came from a high powered rifle, and yet the very article you reference is "The use of suppressors on HIGH POWERED RIFLES"

You tell us now that you never imply they come from any kind of rifle, and yet the word rifle is used many times in your videos.

I might add again that the word SUBSONIC is NEVER USED nor is the word PISTOL.

To top it all off, you then accuse me of misrepresenting you.

I am doing no such thing, I am simply showing you the magnitude of the errors in your research, which are epic.

One would think that as a researcher you would find value in that, rather than accusing me of misrepresenting you when all I have done is simply taken the evidence you have offered, and shown you that it is incorrect.

I would very much appreciate an apology from you about this. It was very unfair of you to accuse me of misrepresenting you when I did no such thing and it is obvious for everyone to see.

Mike

Edited by Mike Williams
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Michael, you're pulling the same crap here that you do in the other forum. I NEVER said or even implied that the early shots were fired from a high powered rifle. I said the shots were subsonic and there is no certainty that they came from any kind of rifle.

Why do I have to spend more time untangling your deliberate misrepresentations than I do discussing the issues, when I debate with you??

Robert,

All one has to do is watch your video to know this is not true. You specifically go into great detail about assembling a rifle before hand and all the issues (as you perceive them) with using a silencer. You even specifically quote an article in which the author talks about some of the inherent issues with rifle suppressors. Not one single time is there ever the mention of the word pistol in your video, and also at no time is there the mention of the word subsonic. This is in both parts 1 and 2.

So what words did you use?

Lets have a look.

Sniper 6 times

Shot 25+ times

GUN shot 10 times

Rifle 6+ times

You use the phrase "No assassin would would enter the plaza with a fully assembled rifle"

And last but not least the article which you reference is titled:

hprs.gif

Yep you guessed it.

"The use of sound suppressors on HIGH POWERED RIFLES"

You tell us now that you never said the shots came from a high powered rifle, and yet the very article you reference is "The use of suppressors on HIGH POWERED RIFLES"

You tell us now that you never imply they come from any kind of rifle, and yet the word rifle is used many times in your videos.

I might add again that the word SUBSONIC is NEVER USED nor is the word PISTOL.

To top it all off, you then accuse me of misrepresenting you.

I am doing no such thing, I am simply showing you the magnitude of the errors in your research, which are epic.

One would think that as a researcher you would find value in that, rather than accusing me of misrepresenting you when all I have done is simply taken the evidence you have offered, and shown you that it is incorrect.

I would very much appreciate an apology from you about this. It was very unfair of you to accuse me of misrepresenting you when I did no such thing and it is obvious for everyone to see.

Mike

Michael, that was a terribly disingenuous posting.

White's article was about problems that are inherent with suppressors due to misalignment and other types of problems, which I believe were the cause of the missed shots, and the tumbling of the bullet that hit JFK in the back. You seem to want to make it appear that I claimed that the early shots were fired from a high powered rifle, because white mentioned them in his magazine article.

You know very well, that I never said those shots were from a high powered rifle. And I corrected you about that a couple weeks ago in jfkassassinationforum.com, telling you even then, that they could have come from a handgun.

So, your latest repetition of this misrepresentation could only have been done deliberately, and with the full knowledge that you were wrong.

At the other forum, you and your partners have done that over and over and over again.

It's impossible to have a coherent discussion with you Michael, when I have to spend 90% of the time untwisting your misrepresentations. Why don't you deal with this stuff, without all the crap?

Edited by Robert Harris
Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael, you're pulling the same crap here that you do in the other forum. I NEVER said or even implied that the early shots were fired from a high powered rifle. I said the shots were subsonic and there is no certainty that they came from any kind of rifle.

Why do I have to spend more time untangling your deliberate misrepresentations than I do discussing the issues, when I debate with you??

Robert,

All one has to do is watch your video to know this is not true. You specifically go into great detail about assembling a rifle before hand and all the issues (as you perceive them) with using a silencer. You even specifically quote an article in which the author talks about some of the inherent issues with rifle suppressors. Not one single time is there ever the mention of the word pistol in your video, and also at no time is there the mention of the word subsonic. This is in both parts 1 and 2.

So what words did you use?

Lets have a look.

Sniper 6 times

Shot 25+ times

GUN shot 10 times

Rifle 6+ times

You use the phrase "No assassin would would enter the plaza with a fully assembled rifle"

And last but not least the article which you reference is titled:

hprs.gif

Yep you guessed it.

"The use of sound suppressors on HIGH POWERED RIFLES"

You tell us now that you never said the shots came from a high powered rifle, and yet the very article you reference is "The use of suppressors on HIGH POWERED RIFLES"

You tell us now that you never imply they come from any kind of rifle, and yet the word rifle is used many times in your videos.

I might add again that the word SUBSONIC is NEVER USED nor is the word PISTOL.

To top it all off, you then accuse me of misrepresenting you.

I am doing no such thing, I am simply showing you the magnitude of the errors in your research, which are epic.

One would think that as a researcher you would find value in that, rather than accusing me of misrepresenting you when all I have done is simply taken the evidence you have offered, and shown you that it is incorrect.

I would very much appreciate an apology from you about this. It was very unfair of you to accuse me of misrepresenting you when I did no such thing and it is obvious for everyone to see.

Mike

Michael, that was a terribly disingenuous posting.

White's article was about problems that are inherent with suppressors due to misalignment and other types of problems, which I believe were the cause of the missed shots, and the tumbling of the bullet that hit JFK in the back. You seem to want to make it appear that I claimed that the early shots were fired from a high powered rifle, because white mentioned them in his magazine article.

You know very well, that I never said those shots were from a high powered rifle. And I corrected you about that a couple weeks ago in jfkassassinationforum.com, telling you even then, that they could have come from a handgun.

So, your latest repetition of this misrepresentation could only have been done deliberately, and with the full knowledge that you were wrong.

At the other forum, you and your partners have done that over and over and over again.

It's impossible to have a coherent discussion with you Michael, when I have to spend 90% of the time untwisting your misrepresentations. Why don't you deal with this stuff, without all the crap?

Robert,

If any of this were true I would gladly agree. It is not.

If you are not claiming in your video that it was a high powered rifle, why do you use the term rifle over 12 times in those two parts?

If you believe it was a pistol why is the word pistol NEVER mentioned?

If you believe it was subsonic ammo, why is the word subsonic never used?

Why would you say that " no assassin would carry an assembled rifle......" If in fact you were not talking about a rifle?

Why would you use the term sniper? Is there such a thing as a sling shot sniper?

Frankly on the other forum I have shown you these same errors, and you just disregard them by saying that I misrepresent you. You use this to try to work out of the fix you are in, and it is apparent.

I did not make the video you did. You used those terms, not I.

Now you have been proven wrong, and just do not wish to admit that, so you are trying to say that you never meant a rifle at all!

We all want to know.....why would you say rifle if you had not meant rifle?

Now are we going to get to the multiple other issues I posted about your videos first two installments, or are you going to continue to back peddle rather than just admit you may need to rethink some issues. That is what an honorable researcher would do.

Mike

Edited by Mike Williams
Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

Allow me to add an alternative explanation to JFK's apparent reaction when the car is close to the Dal-Tex building. I have posted in the past the results of Tom Wilson's photo analysis using Photonics. In short, Wilson sees a person in the second floor open window of Dal-Tex looking into the eyepiece of a box like "device". As I have found in a US Patent search, there is a device (with that identical design) that fires an "ice bullet" that could have been of a compound that would causes paralysis in seconds. The devise can use a powder charge to fire the bullet but it would be of subsonic velocity. Is it possible that the reaction we see is that slug entering JFK's back? It makes sense that it would used close in to the Dal-Tex and would ensure that JFK would stay upright for the shooting teams. Also, Wilson finds three back wounds in JFK, one of exit and two of entrance. Your thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael,

Allow me to add an alternative explanation to JFK's apparent reaction when the car is close to the Dal-Tex building. I have posted in the past the results of Tom Wilson's photo analysis using Photonics. In short, Wilson sees a person in the second floor open window of Dal-Tex looking into the eyepiece of a box like "device". As I have found in a US Patent search, there is a device (with that identical design) that fires an "ice bullet" that could have been of a compound that would causes paralysis in seconds. The devise can use a powder charge to fire the bullet but it would be of subsonic velocity. Is it possible that the reaction we see is that slug entering JFK's back? It makes sense that it would used close in to the Dal-Tex and would ensure that JFK would stay upright for the shooting teams. Also, Wilson finds three back wounds in JFK, one of exit and two of entrance. Your thoughts?

Steve,

Since ballistics is what I study the most, I would certainly be willing to look at whatever you have. Why dont you begin a new thread and we can examine the patent and photos. I would especially be interested in the projectiles these fire as well as the assessment of the back wound(s) you propose.

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael,

Allow me to add an alternative explanation to JFK's apparent reaction when the car is close to the Dal-Tex building. I have posted in the past the results of Tom Wilson's photo analysis using Photonics. In short, Wilson sees a person in the second floor open window of Dal-Tex looking into the eyepiece of a box like "device". As I have found in a US Patent search, there is a device (with that identical design) that fires an "ice bullet" that could have been of a compound that would causes paralysis in seconds. The devise can use a powder charge to fire the bullet but it would be of subsonic velocity. Is it possible that the reaction we see is that slug entering JFK's back? It makes sense that it would used close in to the Dal-Tex and would ensure that JFK would stay upright for the shooting teams. Also, Wilson finds three back wounds in JFK, one of exit and two of entrance. Your thoughts?

Steve, the problem I have with any theories that posit an attempt to immobilize JFK, is that if someone is in a position to do that, why not just go ahead and shoot him, instead? And JFK did move around, and briefly wave to the crowd after that point, so he doesn't really seem to be totally immobile.

My theory explains two important things. First, it explains why most of the early shots went totally unheard and why the one that was heard, never startled anyone and didn't sound like a real gunshot to most witnesses. What many students of the case fail to realize is, that the vast majority of witnesses recalled only one early shot and then closely bunched shots at the end.

Unless there really was just one early shot, then it's pretty obvious that some of them were not heard at all by those witnesses.

And second, the fact that suppressors are notorious for causing wild inaccuracies, explains why at least one and probably two early shots missed the entire limousine. It also explains why the shot that hit JFK in the back, hit far below the head, which would have been the preferred target, and why the bullet was tumblling, and creating an entry wound which was almost twice as tall as it was wide.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael,

Allow me to add an alternative explanation to JFK's apparent reaction when the car is close to the Dal-Tex building. I have posted in the past the results of Tom Wilson's photo analysis using Photonics. In short, Wilson sees a person in the second floor open window of Dal-Tex looking into the eyepiece of a box like "device". As I have found in a US Patent search, there is a device (with that identical design) that fires an "ice bullet" that could have been of a compound that would causes paralysis in seconds. The devise can use a powder charge to fire the bullet but it would be of subsonic velocity. Is it possible that the reaction we see is that slug entering JFK's back? It makes sense that it would used close in to the Dal-Tex and would ensure that JFK would stay upright for the shooting teams. Also, Wilson finds three back wounds in JFK, one of exit and two of entrance. Your thoughts?

Steve, the problem I have with any theories that posit an attempt to immobilize JFK, is that if someone is in a position to do that, why not just go ahead and shoot him, instead? And JFK did move around, and briefly wave to the crowd after that point, so he doesn't really seem to be totally immobile.

My theory explains two important things. First, it explains why most of the early shots went totally unheard and why the one that was heard, never startled anyone and didn't sound like a real gunshot to most witnesses. What many students of the case fail to realize is, that the vast majority of witnesses recalled only one early shot and then closely bunched shots at the end.

Unless there really was just one early shot, then it's pretty obvious that some of them were not heard at all by those witnesses.

And second, the fact that suppressors are notorious for causing wild inaccuracies, explains why at least one and probably two early shots missed the entire limousine. It also explains why the shot that hit JFK in the back, hit far below the head, which would have been the preferred target, and why the bullet was tumblling, and creating an entry wound which was almost twice as tall as it was wide.

Robert,

Of course I agree with the logic that using a dart rather than just shooting the man is silly. Just way to much margin for error.

Most of the witnesses say there was one shot, followed by two close together. To be exact. The reason none of the witnesses heard your "early" shots is simple. There were no early shots.

Suppressors, as I have already told you, are not notorious for causing wild inaccuracies, not at all. The issue is improper manufacture or improper installation. For a person who knows what they are doing they work perfectly. Now can you imagine some guy going after the President of the United States, planning it to the point if using suppressors etc, and then not test his equipment? How silly is that? Someone swift enough to sneak a disassembled rifle into a building and then not know how to assemble and use it properly? That sounds a bit kooky to me.

Not to mention the fact that if the bullet were tumbling or off at the muzzle that it would have any chance of hitting the target is crazy. In your "theory" the shooter has made a hit probably at 223, and then misses the limo by over 20 feet high at 285? Come on that is a stretch for anyone to believe.

As you have also been told, the bullet to strike JFK was certainly not tumbling. The 7mmx4mm entry just indicates that the shooter was in an elevated position. Of course the shooter had to have been elevated much higher than your DalTEx shooter, but in fact he was higher. He was in the 6th floor of the TSBD.

What I do not understand is we have been over all this, you have been shown the errors in your research, and yet, you still seem to be trying to recruit others into your ideas. Why in the world would you continue to spread information that you KNOW is incorrect?

The case deserves the truth Robert. So do the forum members. They do not deserve to be told things that have already been proven to be shenanigans.

Are you ever going to get around to addressing the numerous other errors that I have shown you early on in this thread?

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
Robert,

Just in case you missed it, do you care to address any of the other issues I raised which show the obvious errors in your videos?

Michael, you are impervious to reason. You force me to spend all my time untwisting your convoluted babblage.

Saying that suppressors are not notorious for causing inaccuracies because the problem is the way they are made and installed, is so far beyond fallacious that I don't know where to begin. Yes indeed, the way they are made and installed is precisely the problem - especially the way they are made. And suppressors used by the mafia, are frequently homemade. You are agreeing with me, while trying to make it appear that you are somehow, refuting me..

The bottom line is, whatever the reason for their problems, they are indeed common. White for example, pointed out in his article, that anyone who assembles a rifle and suppressor at the shooting site, faces a likelihood of having problems. And it makes very little sense that a sniper would come into Dealey Plaza with a fully assembled kit and enter the Daltex building.

And your unsupported assertion that if someone just "knows what he is doing" they will function perfectly is just that - something you made up without a shred of reason or documentation. White's article was for the law enforcement community, so he was addressing people who certainly knew what they were doing, in spades. And yet, he warned even them, that they should never try to mount a suppressor at the shooting scene.

And your other unsupported claim, that if the bullet was tumbling, it would never hit it's target, is moronic. BOTH the JFK wound and the Connally wound were majorly elongated. The bullet HAD to have been tumbling to enter that way. The one that hit JFK was way off, striking far below his head, but it certainly hit him.

And your statement,

"The 7mmx4mm entry just indicates that the shooter was in an elevated position."

is blatantly dishonest, because you posted the formula yourself, for calculating the angle of a stable bullet trajectory, based on the height and width of the wound. You first concluded that the angle was 34 degrees, and I corrected you, pointing out that based on the correct formula, it was actually, about 55 degrees and you eventually agreed. That was about three times steeper than the angle should have been, if the shot came from the alleged snipers nest, and about five times steeper than from the third floor, Daltex.

So, had the bullet been stable, as you claim, the height and width of the wound should have been almost equal, with the height only slightly greater than the width, and yielding a result between 13 and 18 degrees - NOT 55 degrees.

The bullet was tumbling, Michael. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

and it doesn't help you to childishly mirror my own statements back to me.

You topped that off, when you claimed I said the shot at 285 came from the same weapon that the early shots did.

And your repliy that I "mentioned" high powered rifles is outrageously disingenuous because you failed to mention that I talked about high powered rifles being used to fire the shots at 285 and 312, which were ear shatteringly loud, and provoked clear startle reactions by the limo passengers and Abraham Zapruder.

And I told you a long time ago, in the other forum, that if the shot at 285 came from the Daltex, it had to have been fired from a different rifle, by either the same, or a different shooter.

Why are you now presenting this argument again, as though you just discovered it yesterday and it is some kind of fatal blow??

You also know, that in my most recent presentation, I discussed the possibility of that shot come from either the Daltex or the TSBD.

But you address NONE of my replies and try to make it appear that I am evading all these brilliant questions. Why can't you be man enough to admit that I answered every one of those questions, and that you have no counterarguments?

Michael, every word you have uttered in this "debate" has been dishonest and deceptive.

Your worst and most outrageously dishonest argument is that Oswald could have fired the shots at 285 and 312.

Every bonafied test by top government weapons experts, conducted by both the FBI and HSCA, not to mention the CBS tests and many others, has failed to produce a single instance of a shooter matching shots at 285 and an accurate strike at 312.

To date, there is not a person on the planet who has even claimed to do that.

You tried to refute those facts, using a totally uncorroborated claim by some character on Youtube, for god's sake.

That is just pathetic, Michael. No responsible person would ever make such a claim.

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,

I have already gone over all of this with you. You are wrong about the silencers, you are wrong about the impact angle and you are wrong about just about every other aspect in your videos. You make mountains out of mo hills and when you are shown that you are wrong you start calling people dishonest and any manner of other childish things.

Now are you going to refute anything I have said with facts, or are you just going to keep whining that I am wrong?

I do have one question.

If it was not a high powered rifle and it was not a pistol then what else do we have that uses bullets and suppressors? Some type of Aborigine Blowgun?

Look how hard you tried to plead your case in your last post. Using the words bullets and silencers. What was this non-rifle non-pistol weapon that uses bullets and silencers?

Robert your really coming off rather poorly.

So now do you care to address the issues, or are you going to go on another whining binge?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Robert,

I have already gone over all of this with you. You are wrong about the silencers, you are wrong about the impact angle and you are wrong about just about every other aspect in your videos. You make mountains out of mo hills and when you are shown that you are wrong you start calling people dishonest and any manner of other childish things.

Now are you going to refute anything I have said with facts, or are you just going to keep whining that I am wrong?

I do have one question.

If it was not a high powered rifle and it was not a pistol then what else do we have that uses bullets and suppressors? Some type of Aborigine Blowgun?

Look how hard you tried to plead your case in your last post. Using the words bullets and silencers. What was this non-rifle non-pistol weapon that uses bullets and silencers?

Robert your really coming off rather poorly.

So now do you care to address the issues, or are you going to go on another whining binge?

Looks as thought Robert has abandon the thread.

Wise choice on his part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the blonde babe sniper in the Mark White article on sound suppressers in Gunwriters.

And if you guys have exausted that round, I have a question about the shooting that I'd like Mike to address.

If the Sixth Floor Sniper didn't need the boxes to lean on, could he have taken the same shot from one or two feet back further into the window?

If so, then nobody would have seen him from the street at all, right?

And if that is so, then can it be concluded that he intended to be seen?

Thanks,

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the blonde babe sniper in the Mark White article on sound suppressers in Gunwriters.

And if you guys have exausted that round, I have a question about the shooting that I'd like Mike to address.

If the Sixth Floor Sniper didn't need the boxes to lean on, could he have taken the same shot from one or two feet back further into the window?

If so, then nobody would have seen him from the street at all, right?

And if that is so, then can it be concluded that he intended to be seen?

Thanks,

BK

Bill,

I really do not think that he had much room to back away from that particular window. This leads me to ask this question. Why in the heck did he not shoot from the west end of the building? He then could have been back away a bit as there would have been no wall to hamper this.

My thinking is this, he chose that window so that as he opened fire the SS car would have its view blocked by the tree. Or perhaps he did not have a high degree of confidence in his shooting ability, and thought he could get more rounds off from the east window, as the target would be in more of a traveling away position.

That window as near as I can determine from Shannyfelt's(?) drawings was only open 20" thats a pretty short opening to shoot from and would be difficult to make a descending shot from anywhere but right in the window. I am sure that the fact that the sill of the window was only 14" above the floor would not help either.

I have often though about making a recreation of that nest, in a real physical model, and doing some shooting experiments through it. For some reason I never get it done, and then when a question like this comes up I wish I would have lol.

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
Robert,

I have already gone over all of this with you. You are wrong about the silencers, you are wrong about the impact angle and you are wrong about just about every other aspect in your videos. You make mountains out of mo hills and when you are shown that you are wrong you start calling people dishonest and any manner of other childish things.

Now are you going to refute anything I have said with facts, or are you just going to keep whining that I am wrong?

I do have one question.

If it was not a high powered rifle and it was not a pistol then what else do we have that uses bullets and suppressors? Some type of Aborigine Blowgun?

Look how hard you tried to plead your case in your last post. Using the words bullets and silencers. What was this non-rifle non-pistol weapon that uses bullets and silencers?

Robert your really coming off rather poorly.

So now do you care to address the issues, or are you going to go on another whining binge?

You stated,

"If it was not a high powered rifle and it was not a pistol then what else do we have that uses bullets and suppressors? Some type of Aborigine Blowgun?"

was a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I said. I said that we do not know what kind of a weapon it was. Why can't you deal with any of this honestly, Michael.

And you totally evaded every fact and argument I made. Let's give you another shot at addressing what I REALLY DID SAY:

Michael, you are impervious to reason. You force me to spend all my time untwisting your convoluted babblage.

Saying that suppressors are not notorious for causing inaccuracies because the problem is the way they are made and installed, is so far beyond fallacious that I don't know where to begin. Yes indeed, the way they are made and installed is precisely the problem - especially the way they are made. And suppressors used by the mafia, are frequently homemade. You are agreeing with me, while trying to make it appear that you are somehow, refuting me..

The bottom line is, whatever the reason for their problems, they are indeed common. White for example, pointed out in his article, that anyone who assembles a rifle and suppressor at the shooting site, faces a likelihood of having problems. And it makes very little sense that a sniper would come into Dealey Plaza with a fully assembled kit and enter the Daltex building.

And your unsupported assertion that if someone just "knows what he is doing" they will function perfectly is just that - something you made up without a shred of reason or documentation. White's article was for the law enforcement community, so he was addressing people who certainly knew what they were doing, in spades. And yet, he warned even them, that they should never try to mount a suppressor at the shooting scene.

And your other unsupported claim, that if the bullet was tumbling, it would never hit it's target, is moronic. BOTH the JFK wound and the Connally wound were majorly elongated. The bullet HAD to have been tumbling to enter that way. The one that hit JFK was way off, striking far below his head, but it certainly hit him.

And your statement,

"The 7mmx4mm entry just indicates that the shooter was in an elevated position."

is blatantly dishonest, because you posted the formula yourself, for calculating the angle of a stable bullet trajectory, based on the height and width of the wound. You first concluded that the angle was 34 degrees, and I corrected you, pointing out that based on the correct formula, it was actually, about 55 degrees and you eventually agreed. That was about three times steeper than the angle should have been, if the shot came from the alleged snipers nest, and about five times steeper than from the third floor, Daltex.

So, had the bullet been stable, as you claim, the height and width of the wound should have been almost equal, with the height only slightly greater than the width, and yielding a result between 13 and 18 degrees - NOT 55 degrees.

The bullet was tumbling, Michael. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

and it doesn't help you to childishly mirror my own statements back to me.

You topped that off, when you claimed I said the shot at 285 came from the same weapon that the early shots did.

And your repliy that I "mentioned" high powered rifles is outrageously disingenuous because you failed to mention that I talked about high powered rifles being used to fire the shots at 285 and 312, which were ear shatteringly loud, and provoked clear startle reactions by the limo passengers and Abraham Zapruder.

And I told you a long time ago, in the other forum, that if the shot at 285 came from the Daltex, it had to have been fired from a different rifle, by either the same, or a different shooter.

Why are you now presenting this argument again, as though you just discovered it yesterday and it is some kind of fatal blow??

You also know, that in my most recent presentation, I discussed the possibility of that shot come from either the Daltex or the TSBD.

But you address NONE of my replies and try to make it appear that I am evading all these brilliant questions. Why can't you be man enough to admit that I answered every one of those questions, and that you have no counterarguments?

Michael, every word you have uttered in this "debate" has been dishonest and deceptive.

Your worst and most outrageously dishonest argument is that Oswald could have fired the shots at 285 and 312.

Every bonafied test by top government weapons experts, conducted by both the FBI and HSCA, not to mention the CBS tests and many others, has failed to produce a single instance of a shooter matching shots at 285 and an accurate strike at 312.

To date, there is not a person on the planet who has even claimed to do that.

You tried to refute those facts, using a totally uncorroborated claim by some character on Youtube, for god's sake.

That is just pathetic, Michael. No responsible person would ever make such a claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"You are wrong about the silencers, you are wrong about the impact angle and you are wrong about just about every other aspect in your video"

Gotta love the xxxxx chat. Zero content and Zero specificity.

Michael, why don't you tell us specifically, how I am wrong about all these things?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...