Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

The Warren Commission concluded that "most" witnesses reported a single gunshot, a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end of the attack.

"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

Of course for decades, lone nut advocates have been telling us that the witnesses were just confused. But there was a very good reason why the witnesses heard closely spaced shots at the end and it had nothing to do with confusion. Two shots which were 1.5 seconds apart, were fired then, at frames 285 and 312.

The 285 shot was actually discovered by Dr. Luis Alvarez, though as a staunch Warren Commission supporter, he speculated that it was a siren, since as he stated in his paper, Oswald could not have fired both of those shots. Alvarez concluded that Zapruder and Bill Greer were both startled by the loud noise at frame 285, but probably because he was only looking at printed, still frames, he didn't notice that every other nonvictim in the limo, was also reacting in almost perfect unison with them. And every one of the people we see reacting, told us exactly what it was that they heard then.

And it was NOT a siren.

This is the Quicktime version of my presentation on this subject.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov

And this is the Youtube version.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Warren Commission concluded that "most" witnesses reported a single gunshot, a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end of the attack.

"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

Of course for decades, lone nut advocates have been telling us that the witnesses were just confused. But there was a very good reason why the witnesses heard closely spaced shots at the end and it had nothing to do with confusion. Two shots which were 1.5 seconds apart, were fired then, at frames 285 and 312.

The 285 shot was actually discovered by Dr. Luis Alvarez, though as a staunch Warren Commission supporter, he speculated that it was a siren, since as he stated in his paper, Oswald could not have fired both of those shots. Alvarez concluded that Zapruder and Bill Greer were both startled by the loud noise at frame 285, but probably because he was only looking at printed, still frames, he didn't notice that every other nonvictim in the limo, was also reacting in almost perfect unison with them. And every one of the people we see reacting, told us exactly what it was that they heard then.

And it was NOT a siren.

This is the Quicktime version of my presentation on this subject.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov

And this is the Youtube version.

The 285 shot was actually discovered by Dr. Luis Alvarez, though as a staunch Warren Commission supporter, he speculated that it was a siren

That is some funny stuff. How could Alvarez have "discovered" a shot, and then "speculate it was a siren"

Alvarez never said there was a shot at 285, and this theory has been seriously debunked over at Duncan's place.

Of course for decades, lone nut advocates have been telling us that the witnesses were just confused

Remember this as you watch and see how often Robert "corrects" these witnesses that he says were "not confused".

OF course some of them were confused, I think it is completely understandable given the circumstances.

I would also ask you to consider that the limo occupants would be affected by 55 lbs of force as the limo slows from 12mph to 8 mph in .5 seconds. Of course this is never taken into consideration by Robert in his "theory"

While 55lbs is not a great and massive force it would surely be a noticeable reaction.

Bear in mind as you watch this also that Nellie always says she heard a shot and JFK raised his hands, then she heard a shot and it hit John, and then she heard a shot and the brain matter rained down on them. Never at any time does anyone ever say there was a shot between when JBC was hit and the head shot.

The whole premise here is Roberts attempt to prove conspiracy by saying an MC rifle can not fire 2 shots in 1.5 seconds which it certainly can.

These shots were fired at 120 yards into a 10" plate. 3 shots 2.3 seconds. Since we have no proof of Oswald practicing, and in the same token we can not rule out that he did. Therefore its a moot point and we must at least look at the rifles ability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOQ2oebB2M

Edited by Mike Williams
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Warren Commission concluded that "most" witnesses reported a single gunshot, a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end of the attack.

"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

Of course for decades, lone nut advocates have been telling us that the witnesses were just confused. But there was a very good reason why the witnesses heard closely spaced shots at the end and it had nothing to do with confusion. Two shots which were 1.5 seconds apart, were fired then, at frames 285 and 312.

The 285 shot was actually discovered by Dr. Luis Alvarez, though as a staunch Warren Commission supporter, he speculated that it was a siren, since as he stated in his paper, Oswald could not have fired both of those shots. Alvarez concluded that Zapruder and Bill Greer were both startled by the loud noise at frame 285, but probably because he was only looking at printed, still frames, he didn't notice that every other nonvictim in the limo, was also reacting in almost perfect unison with them. And every one of the people we see reacting, told us exactly what it was that they heard then.

And it was NOT a siren.

This is the Quicktime version of my presentation on this subject.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov

And this is the Youtube version.

The 285 shot was actually discovered by Dr. Luis Alvarez, though as a staunch Warren Commission supporter, he speculated that it was a siren

That is some funny stuff. How could Alvarez have "discovered" a shot, and then "speculate it was a siren"

Alvarez never said there was a shot at 285, and this theory has been seriously debunked over at Duncan's place.

Of course for decades, lone nut advocates have been telling us that the witnesses were just confused

Remember this as you watch and see how often Robert "corrects" these witnesses that he says were "not confused".

OF course some of them were confused, I think it is completely understandable given the circumstances.

I would also ask you to consider that the limo occupants would be affected by 55 lbs of force as the limo slows from 12mph to 8 mph in .5 seconds. Of course this is never taken into consideration by Robert in his "theory"

While 55lbs is not a great and massive force it would surely be a noticeable reaction.

Bear in mind as you watch this also that Nellie always says she heard a shot and JFK raised his hands, then she heard a shot and it hit John, and then she heard a shot and the brain matter rained down on them. Never at any time does anyone ever say there was a shot between when JBC was hit and the head shot.

The whole premise here is Roberts attempt to prove conspiracy by saying an MC rifle can not fire 2 shots in 1.5 seconds which it certainly can.

These shots were fired at 120 yards into a 10" plate. 3 shots 2.3 seconds. Since we have no proof of Oswald practicing, and in the same token we can not rule out that he did. Therefore its a moot point and we must at least look at the rifles ability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOQ2oebB2M

Michael, who finally came out of the closet, as a rather fanatical lone nutter, has taken on the role of my own personal xxxxx. He follows me around from forum to forum and thread to thread and has posted countless dozens of personal attacks and smears at jfkassassinationforum.com and he continues his campaign here.

His argument that the limo passengers were stricken with a "55 pound force" is both ludicrous and totally disingenuous because what Michael doesn't tell you is, that he claimed the limo passengers were thrown forward by the force of Alvarez slowing the limo AFTER THE LIMO PASSENGERS HAD ALREADY BEEN STARTLED BY THE NOISE AT 285.

To this day, I cannot comprehend what his point is, since he has already admitted that those people were were startled by a sharp noise, which is no more than a confirmation of what I have been saying all along. And FWIW, anyone can look at the reactions, and see that John Connally and JFK were not "thrown" forward at all, which tells us that the reactions had nothing to do with inertia.

And that makes sense, because the expert at the Physics forum where they did Michaels math for him, also told him that the impact of that slowdown might be "noticed" but that it was "no big deal" - something he never bothered to mention in either of the two forums. Needless to say, being "noticed" is much different from being thrown forward as Michael tries so hard to convince us of.

Michael's latest fallback position is that Oswald could have fired both the shot at 285 and the one at 312, 1.5 seconds later. To support that claim, he makes a series of outrageously dishonest and disingenuous statements.

First, he makes the misleading statement that someone on Youtube claimed that he fired 3 shots in 2.3 seconds. As Michael knows all too well, the first shot is not taken into consideration because the shooter has already loaded the chamber and sighted his target when the stopwatch begins. So, the uncorroborated claim was, that his reload time was 1.15 seconds. Michael also tells <removed by moderator> that I claimed such a thing was impossible.

Of course, a person can fire that fast. The problem is, that he cannot hit anything much smaller than the planet. And even Michael's Youtube shooter was firing at a target roughly four times larger than JFK's head.

The significant documented and corroborated facts are these:

1. Every FBI expert who originally tested Oswald's rifle required 3 or more seconds, reload and aim time.

2. Months later, SA Frazier went back to the firing range and brought his time down to 2.3 seconds. He later testified that his time was about as fast as was humanly possible.

3. Years later, the HSCA recruited eight sharpshooters from the Washington DC police dept. Along with two staffers they each repeatedly tried to match the HSCA's theory that Oswald fired shots 1.66 seconds apart. They tried using the scope in place and they tried, after removing the scope and firing through the iron sights on the barrel.

And every one of them failed, every single time.

No exceptions - not even one.

The simple fact is, that there is NO documented example of someone firing that model rifle fast enough to match the speed and accuracy that would be the equivalent of shots at 285 and 312. And as far as anyone knows, there is no undocumented example either.

The shot at 312 was by far, the best and most accurate of the day. It was not fired by someone trying to set a world speedshooting record, and there was certainly no need to, since the limo had just slowed to about 8 mph.

I have seen some crazy theories over the years, regarding the JFK case. But none more ludicrous or pathetically desperate than Michael's claim that Oswald could have fired the shots at 285 and 312.

I can't wait to see what his next fallback position will be :lol:

Robert Harris

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael, who finally came out of the closet, as a rather fanatical lone nutter, has taken on the role of my own personal xxxxx. He follows me around from forum to forum and thread to thread and has posted countless dozens of personal attacks and smears at jfkassassinationforum.com and he continues his campaign here.

Robert,

Someone who disagrees with you is not personally attacking you. I continue nothing here except the refutation of your poor research and information. You posted your videos and theories, I am simply addressing the issues with them. I have discussed these issues with you in no other forums than the ones mentioned, Duncan's place and here. I addressed them AFTER you made opening posts proposing your ideas.

If you had not wanted input, why post your thoughts? Is this not what a forum is for. Discussion? Or would you rather not be critiqued? I think this was a very important event in history. I am still studying it, and the position I hold is that it was a lone gunman. This has changed as at one time I fully believed in conspiracy.

His argument that the limo passengers were stricken with a "55 pound force" is both ludicrous and totally disingenuous because what Michael doesn't tell you is, that he claimed the limo passengers were thrown forward by the force of Alvarez slowing the limo AFTER THE LIMO PASSENGERS HAD ALREADY BEEN STARTLED BY THE NOISE AT 285.

In Roberts original posting he states that the Limo does not slow before frame 299-300. Of course Alvarez study proves him wrong and he completely misread Alvarez graphic depicting this slowdown. Alvarez centers this braking at 299-300. Meaning that the slow down was already in progress at that time. Robert seems to have missed this completely. The effect of 55 lbs of force is neither ludicrous nor disingenuous. It is a mathematical calculation and fact.

To this day, I cannot comprehend what his point is, since he has already admitted that those people were were startled by a sharp noise, which is no more than a confirmation of what I have been saying all along. And FWIW, anyone can look at the reactions, and see that John Connally and JFK were not "thrown" forward at all, which tells us that the reactions had nothing to do with inertia.

In the beginning of all this I agreed that there was something, and that it could possibly be a startle reaction. Once I read Alvarez data and calculated the force of the braking on the passengers, I came to the conclusion that there must not be a startle at all. The Jiggle episode is the smallest of the 5 episodes, in Alvarez data. It lasts about 1-2 frames, and, as Alvarez himself stated he doubted it was a gunshot. I find it amazing that Robert would build a case around data that seems to directly contradict him. He cites Alvarez as confirmation of a shot, and yet Alvarez himself tells us he highly doubts it was a shot.

And that makes sense, because the expert at the Physics forum where they did Michaels math for him, also told him that the impact of that slowdown might be "noticed" but that it was "no big deal" - something he never bothered to mention in either of the two forums. Needless to say, being "noticed" is much different from being thrown forward as Michael tries so hard to convince us of.

I laugh every time I read this. Robert seems to make much of the fact that I actually went to a physics forum in search of the correct calculation. Now I suppose there are some here that could do this from memory, but I myself am more than 25 years out of high school. When I origianlly made the calculation I knew it was not correct. Something was missing from the equation. I went to a physics forum and was very quickly shown the error in my calculation, I had not converted the units properly. I would be more than happy to post a link to that thread for all who desire to see it. The statement that Robert makes about them doing the math for me is complete foolishness.

What I do find interesting, is that in the opening post I am called a xxxxx and accused of following Robert. It is a great curiosity for me considering he followed me to the physics forum. Some one is definitely following someone, but it sure is not me.

I never said anyone was "thrown" forward. I said it would be noticeable which it surely is. Robert seems to gravitate towards the extreme. I said they would have a noticeable reaction, Robert takes this as me saying they all, to a passenger, should be bouncing off the windshield, which is not the case at all.

Here is a link to the physics thread. Anyone can see I had help resolving the units and did the math myself. This also shows a distinct fabrication by Robert.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=394172

I see no issue in consulting a physics forum to resolve an issue. I thought that's what research is all about.

I might also add that this forum is excellent as a resource and has nice people and loads of information.

Michael's latest fallback position is that Oswald could have fired both the shot at 285 and the one at 312, 1.5 seconds later. To support that claim, he makes a series of outrageously dishonest and disingenuous statements.

First, he makes the misleading statement that someone on Youtube claimed that he fired 3 shots in 2.3 seconds. As Michael knows all too well, the first shot is not taken into consideration because the shooter has already loaded the chamber and sighted his target when the stopwatch begins. So, the uncorroborated claim was, that his reload time was 1.15 seconds. Michael also tells <removed by moderator> that I claimed such a thing was impossible.

Of course, a person can fire that fast. The problem is, that he cannot hit anything much smaller than the planet. And even Michael's Youtube shooter was firing at a target roughly four times larger than JFK's head.

I have to laugh a little and ask, if you really thought that it was possible, as you claim, then why would you say that the shots at 285 and 313 prove conspiracy? Of course you did not believe it could be done. Thats what your whole theory is based on. You again accuse me of <removed by moderator> when in fact that is not the case at all. The very last seconds of this video you state that Oswald could have fired one or the other but not both. You claim this is my "recent fall back position" which it certainly is not, what it IS is another nail in the coffin that proves even if a shot existed at 285 it would not prove conspiracy. One nail of man I might add. I am glad to see that you now agree a person can fire that fast. There might just be a bit of what you are being taught soaking in.

So now that we agree that a person can fire that fast, we have to address the "could not hit anything smaller than the planet".

All one has to do is watch that video to realize that the shooter is shooting at a 10" plate at 120 yards. This plate is on a 3 foot stand. He fires 3 rounds in 2.3 seconds, and makes 3 hits on the target (10" circle). Robert then says that the man is not hitting the target all 3 times, so i wrote that youtube member to confirm he was in fact hitting with the shots, and the poster confirmed in a message to me, that they in fact had made 3 hits. Being a Carcano owner I have no issue with this. The Carcano has very mild recoil, and reacquiring the target after each shot is very easy and smooth. Nothing in my 24 years of shooting experience(professional) would make me doubt this mans claims of 3 hits.

Of course as is Roberts MO this does not fit his theory, so the man must be lying, even though he can watch the video and see clearly he is not. We can write him and receive confirmation as well, which I have done.

The significant documented and corroborated facts are these:

1. Every FBI expert who originally tested Oswald's rifle required 3 or more seconds, reload and aim time.

Which proves that the FBI expert was not very familiar with the Carcano, and nothing more. The weapon is obviously capable.

2. Months later, SA Frazier went back to the firing range and brought his time down to 2.3 seconds. He later testified that his time was about as fast as was humanly possible.

Which proves that with practice one becomes more efficient. Perhaps those multiple indications that the cartridges had been cycled through the weapon multiple times is an indication that someone practiced before the assassination. Imagine that would ya?

3. Years later, the HSCA recruited eight sharpshooters from the Washington DC police dept. Along with two staffers they each repeatedly tried to match the HSCA's theory that Oswald fired shots 1.66 seconds apart. They tried using the scope in place and they tried, after removing the scope and firing through the iron sights on the barrel.

And every one of them failed, every single time.

No exceptions - not even one.

Sigh so as not to have to repeat myself see answer 1.

The simple fact is, that there is NO documented example of someone firing that model rifle fast enough to match the speed and accuracy that would be the equivalent of shots at 285 and 312. And as far as anyone knows, there is no undocumented example either.

I guess you must have missed that video I posted.

Here is is again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOQ2oebB2M

These shots are fired in less than 2.3 seconds for 3 shots. Even if you discount the first that is 2 shots in 1.15 seconds each average.

I have seen some crazy theories over the years, regarding the JFK case. But none more ludicrous or pathetically desperate than Michael's claim that Oswald could have fired the shots at 285 and 312.

You can use as much strong language as you like the fact remains that it was possible. We have evidence that someone practiced cycling the carcano, and we have a video that shows us the weapon was capable of the task. There is no disputing this.

Now as a side note. I would encourage Robert to register at a sound CAD forum. If he had done so he would have noticed as he " examined this shot for a long time in my (Roberts) CAD program" that the shot he alleges at 285 would not have "narrowly" missed as he claimed. It would have missed by going more than 20 feet over the limo. And that is the projected trajectory shooting from the 2nd floor, not the third, the third would put it almost 30 feet over at least. This is based on his theory that the shot hit Main as we see in the diagram in his video.

Best to all ,

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to add for those following. This would be possibly the 4th shot from Roberts alleged Dal Tex Shooter.

Originally Robert Postulates these are suppressed rifle shots. This has been well proven in this thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0&start=0

Of course he has changed his position, as we see in that thread, to one of using something other than a rifle and subsonic ammo, even though he never at any point says that in his video.

If this is his new position then one has to wonder why the people would react to a shot at all. If this were a suppressed weapon "something other than a rifle" as Robert Postulates in his new position, and if this shooter is now firing subsonic ammo, as he now have changed his "story" to then they certainly would not have seen the bullet, they certainly would not have felt a "shock wave" and they certainly would not have heard it. SO why then would they be reacting to it?

The whole story just makes no ballistic sense what so ever.

I guess I am now a xxxxx because I do not agree with him, and shown his theory is a ballistic mess.

Well all i can say is that I believe this case is important, and as such deserves correct information to those who study it.

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would also like to add for those following. This would be possibly the 4th shot from Roberts alleged Dal Tex Shooter.

Originally Robert Postulates these are suppressed rifle shots. This has been well proven in this thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0&start=0

Of course he has changed his position, as we see in that thread, to one of using something other than a rifle and subsonic ammo, even though he never at any point says that in his video.

If this is his new position then one has to wonder why the people would react to a shot at all. If this were a suppressed weapon "something other than a rifle" as Robert Postulates in his new position, and if this shooter is now firing subsonic ammo, as he now have changed his "story" to then they certainly would not have seen the bullet, they certainly would not have felt a "shock wave" and they certainly would not have heard it. SO why then would they be reacting to it?

The whole story just makes no ballistic sense what so ever.

I guess I am now a xxxxx because I do not agree with him, and shown his theory is a ballistic mess.

Well all i can say is that I believe this case is important, and as such deserves correct information to those who study it.

Mike

Michael, you are a xxxxx because almost everything you claimed, <removed by moderator>.

I never stated the early shots came from a high powered rifle and I never stated they came from a pistol. I don't know what the weapon was, which is why I never claimed it was either.

The shots at 285 and 312 did indeed, come from a high powered rifle because they were loud enough to startle the people in the limo.

You need to stop and think, that most of the people <removed by moderator>, have seen the video and know exactly what I said and what I didn't say.

Fortunately for me, you're not just <removed by moderator> a xxxxx, you're also not very good at it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael, you are a xxxxx because almost everything you claimed, <removed by moderator>.

I never stated the early shots came from a high powered rifle and I never stated they came from a pistol. I don't know what the weapon was, which is why I never claimed it was either.

The shots at 285 and 312 did indeed, come from a high powered rifle because they were loud enough to startle the people in the limo.

You need to stop and think, that most of the people <removed by moderator> have seen the video and know exactly what I said and what I didn't say.

Fortunately for me, you're not just a <removed by moderator> xxxxx, you're also not very good at it.

Michael, you are a xxxxx because almost everything you claimed, <removed by moderator>.

Robert,

I take exception to this. <removed by moderator>

I never stated the early shots came from a high powered rifle and I never stated they came from a pistol. I don't know what the weapon was, which is why I never claimed it was either.

Then why do you use the term rifle so many times in your video? You have yet to answer that. Why do you use the other term as I have posted previously? You have yet to answer that.

The shots at 285 and 312 did indeed, come from a high powered rifle because they were loud enough to startle the people in the limo.

Wait a second here. In your videos you have the shots at the turn in Towner, a shot in the 160's, a shot at 223, and this shot at 285 all coming from your third floor DalTex shooter. Now you ARE telling us he had a high power rifle? Which is it? Did he or did he not? How many weapons did they imaginary man have up there with him?

Anyone who watches these videos can plainly see that. They can also see that I am not lying whatsoever.

Part 1:

Part2:

The 285 Shot:

You need to stop and think, that most of the people <removed by moderator> have seen the video and know exactly what I said and what I didn't say.

I have attached the links to all 3 of the videos i have discussed above, and invite anyone to watch them <removed by moderator>. What you fail to realize Robert, is that had I <been wrong> members of this board would have been quick to point it out to me. Not one person has made a comment other than Pat. <removed by moderator> he simply accused me of being wrong. I was not wrong however, for just the reasons mentioned.

Fortunately for me, you're not just a <removed by moderator> xxxxx, you're also not very good at it.

You have yet to prove either one. So if you care to be specific I would love to see that. If not, as is the case, then you need to apologize for your rude behavior.

I invite anyone on this board to show me where I have <removed by moderator> about anything I have written in regard to Roberts videos I have listed above.

This is Roberts typical conduct. If you dont agree with him you are a <removed by moderator> fanatic, etc etc.

But then he NEVER backs it up with exact proof <removed by moderator>.

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, you stated,

"All one has to do is watch that video to realize that the shooter is shooting at a 10" plate at 120 yards. This plate is on a 3 foot stand."

I realize Michael, that you want to convince readers that the target was close to the size of a human head. But at 0:39 in the video, the onscreen statement is:

"three accurate shots in 2.3 seconds on a 10 inch by 3 foot metal plate.."

The target was NOT 10 inches by 10 inches. It was 10 inches by 3 feet.

Why did you misrepresent your own source, Michael?

Were you hoping no-one would notice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, after I told you that, I never stated the early shots came from a high powered rifle and I never stated they came from a pistol. I don't know what the weapon was, which is why I never claimed it was either - you replied.

"Then why do you use the term rifle so many times in your video?"

Because the shots at 285 and 312, which provoked visible startle reactions, obviously came from high powered rifles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael, you stated,

"All one has to do is watch that video to realize that the shooter is shooting at a 10" plate at 120 yards. This plate is on a 3 foot stand."

I realize Michael, that you want to convince readers that the target was close to the size of a human head. But at 0:39 in the video, the onscreen statement is:

"three accurate shots in 2.3 seconds on a 10 inch by 3 foot metal plate.."

The target was NOT 10 inches by 10 inches. It was 10 inches by 3 feet.

Why did you misrepresent your own source, Michael?

Were you hoping no-one would notice?

I am quoting my own source. Not misrepresenting him. Write him and ask.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Wait a second here. In your videos you have the shots at the turn in Towner, a shot in the 160's, a shot at 223, and this shot at 285 all coming from your third floor DalTex shooter. Now you ARE telling us he had a high power rifle? Which is it? Did he or did he not?"

Michael, you asked about this long ago - on April 7th in fact, in the other forum, and I replied

"The first three shots might very well have all come from the same weapon. Of course, that could not have been the same as the weapons which fired the much louder shots at 285 and 312."

I also pointed out to to you, that if the 285 shot came from the Daltex, the shooter would have to have used a different weapon for that shot, or there was a another sniper with him, using a high powered rifle.

There is nothing at all unreasonable about that and you didn't even try to challenge me on it. Why do you now pretend that this is some kind of revelation you just came up with?

I also pointed out, and also explained in my video presentation, the 285 shot might very well have been fired from the Depository.

Michael, you are fabricating issues that have already been resolved and to which you had no counter argument. What is the point of this, other than harassment??

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael, you stated,

"All one has to do is watch that video to realize that the shooter is shooting at a 10" plate at 120 yards. This plate is on a 3 foot stand."

I realize Michael, that you want to convince readers that the target was close to the size of a human head. But at 0:39 in the video, the onscreen statement is:

"three accurate shots in 2.3 seconds on a 10 inch by 3 foot metal plate.."

The target was NOT 10 inches by 10 inches. It was 10 inches by 3 feet.

Why did you misrepresent your own source, Michael?

Were you hoping no-one would notice?

I am quoting my own source. Not misrepresenting him. Write him and ask.

I just have two questions Michael.

First, would you cite him verbatim, describing the dimensions?

And second, if he gave you dimensions that contradicted his own video, doesn't that make you wonder just a bit, about how reliable he is?

Oh, and one last thing. What's the guy's actual name?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael, after I told you that, I never stated the early shots came from a high powered rifle and I never stated they came from a pistol. I don't know what the weapon was, which is why I never claimed it was either - you replied.

"Then why do you use the term rifle so many times in your video?"

Because the shots at 285 and 312, which provoked visible startle reactions, obviously came from high powered rifles.

So your DalTex shooter was in the early stages, the Towner /160 shot/223 shot, firing something that uses bullets (your words) suppressor(your words) with a rifle that he assembled at the scene (your words). In your video you repeat multiple times "Now folks if you were a sniper and you just fired a shot that missed....what would you do? You would fire again right? And that is just what he did."

So Since you are saying he fired again we can then assume it is the same shooter.

I laugh each time I now read "I never stated those shots came from a high powered rifle and I never stated those shots came from a pistol."

If you were not saying that then why did you use the word rifle, why did you explain to us that the person would have to assemble the rifle at the scene? I mean really now Robert, what else fires bullets uses a suppressor and has to be assembled at the scene. This is greatly funny.

Now onto 285 which gets even funnier.

Now you have shots coming from the DalTex, WITH a high power rifle.

Um...how many people were smuggling rifles into the DalTex that day? Must have looked like the staging area for the D Day Landings at Normady. LOL

Either that or your shooter was hauling up this mystery weapon and a high powered rifle.

Now why dont you just fess up and tell us that you were in fact talking about a high power rifle. It is blatantly obvious.

I have to laugh a bit when I think of a guy firing something that uses bullets a suppressor and "has to be assembled because no one could smuggle in a assembled rifle (your words). And then abandoning thei weapon FOR a high powered rifle to make his final shots.

This is becoming ridiculous.

But I must confess, I do enjoy watching you dance something akin to the hokey pokey trying to explain your way out of an inescapable position.

psssssssst there was no shot at 285, so you dont have to try to explain that one. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael, you stated,

"All one has to do is watch that video to realize that the shooter is shooting at a 10" plate at 120 yards. This plate is on a 3 foot stand."

I realize Michael, that you want to convince readers that the target was close to the size of a human head. But at 0:39 in the video, the onscreen statement is:

"three accurate shots in 2.3 seconds on a 10 inch by 3 foot metal plate.."

The target was NOT 10 inches by 10 inches. It was 10 inches by 3 feet.

Why did you misrepresent your own source, Michael?

Were you hoping no-one would notice?

I am quoting my own source. Not misrepresenting him. Write him and ask.

I just have two questions Michael.

First, would you cite him verbatim, describing the dimensions?

And second, if he gave you dimensions that contradicted his own video, doesn't that make you wonder just a bit, about how reliable he is?

Oh, and one last thing. What's the guy's actual name?

I already did cite him verbatim, were you not paying attention?

Anyone who shoots uses some type of a target stand. I simply asked him to clarify the target.

He is not contradicting anything.

He can be contacted via youtube. I will not give his real name in a forum without his consent, that would be completely out of line.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Wait a second here. In your videos you have the shots at the turn in Towner, a shot in the 160's, a shot at 223, and this shot at 285 all coming from your third floor DalTex shooter. Now you ARE telling us he had a high power rifle? Which is it? Did he or did he not?"

Michael, you asked about this long ago - on April 7th in fact, in the other forum, and I replied

"The first three shots might very well have all come from the same weapon. Of course, that could not have been the same as the weapons which fired the much louder shots at 285 and 312."

I also pointed out to to you, that if the 285 shot came from the Daltex, the shooter would have to have used a different weapon for that shot, or there was a another sniper with him, using a high powered rifle.

There is nothing at all unreasonable about that and you didn't even try to challenge me on it. Why do you now pretend that this is some kind of revelation you just came up with?

I also pointed out, and also explained in my video presentation, the 285 shot might very well have been fired from the Depository.

Michael, you are fabricating issues that have already been resolved and to which you had no counter argument. What is the point of this, other than harassment??

I brought this up so the readers of THIS forum would be aware of the ridiculousness of what your "theory" contains. Its not harassment Robert, not at all. Why do you have an issue with me bringing it up? Is there some part of our exchange you do not want the readers here to have read? I bet there is. I bet you wish they had not read any of it. Challenge you on it, hell all I could do was laugh about it.

I wonder if all these shooters with all these weapons marched in platoon formation into the Dal Tex. :lol: :lol:

As far as issues resolved, you have not resolved one of the errors in your videos to date. All you did was come to another forum garnering support for these same ideas. Judging by the amount of responses you are getting I think your "theory" has epically failed here as well. These readers are not stupid. They see the exact position you are in.

It must be difficult.

Keep changing the theory Robert, its your only hope of getting it right. In fact, scratch that. Just go back to the drawing board.

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...