Jump to content
The Education Forum

Fetzer takes ballistics 101!


Recommended Posts

Bullet velocity and mass will affect the nature of wounding. Velocity is classified as low (<1000 fps), medium (1000 to 2000 fps), and high (>2000 fps). (Wilson, 1977)

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORI...NS/GUNBLST.html

Additionally Oswalds rifle held an average velocity of 2165fps per Frazier (WCH3p399-400)

But dont let the facts slow you down Jim.

As usual you have no clue what you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We have: http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html You lost.

Monk,

Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment,

which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559:

From #2558:

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

From #2559:

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a

Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle

velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me

have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity

bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have

fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy

says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say:

"Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot

possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his

posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen.

Jim

When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.

Mike Williams

Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course.

Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so...

Jim,

Any time you would like to debate ballistics with me, just let me know. You think O'Reily made you look like a moron, you have not seen anything yet.

Mike

That is one of the most moronic ballistic writings I have ever read. I should have known who the author was.

By the way Jim, writing an idiotic paper does not constitute a debate with me on ballistics, what it does is shows your ignorance of the subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have: http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html You lost.

Monk,

Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment,

which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559:

From #2558:

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

From #2559:

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a

Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle

velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me

have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity

bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have

fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy

says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say:

"Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot

possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his

posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen.

Jim

When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.

Mike Williams

Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course.

Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so...

Jim,

Any time you would like to debate ballistics with me, just let me know. You think O'Reily made you look like a moron, you have not seen anything yet.

Mike

That is one of the most moronic ballistic writings I have ever read. I should have known who the author was.

By the way Jim, writing an idiotic paper does not constitute a debate with me on ballistics, what it does is shows your ignorance of the subject matter.

Quick response.... what is you know re: case ballisitcs that the FBI/ DPD don't? Neither could with reasonable certainty place the MC in LHO's hands, nor that he fired a .38 that afternoon? Who needs ballistics debate? PROOF! Sounds ike disinfo nonsense....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have: http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html You lost.

Monk,

Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment,

which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559:

From #2558:

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

From #2559:

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a

Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle

velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me

have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity

bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have

fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy

says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say:

"Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot

possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his

posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen.

Jim

When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.

Mike Williams

Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course.

Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so...

Jim,

Any time you would like to debate ballistics with me, just let me know. You think O'Reily made you look like a moron, you have not seen anything yet.

Mike

That is one of the most moronic ballistic writings I have ever read. I should have known who the author was.

By the way Jim, writing an idiotic paper does not constitute a debate with me on ballistics, what it does is shows your ignorance of the subject matter.

Quick response.... what is you know re: case ballisitcs that the FBI/ DPD don't? Neither could with reasonable certainty place the MC in LHO's hands, nor that he fired a .38 that afternoon? Who needs ballistics debate? PROOF! Sounds ike disinfo nonsense....

Complete and utter denial does not and will never displace the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Unlike my article, which was based upon the study of multiple sources, where

I made a point of looking for those that were published around the time of the

assassination, this one you seem to have pulled from you rear has nothing to do

with the Mannlicher-Carcano. So you are faking it, just as it you seem to be faking

your standing as a Master Gunnery Sergeant. You might want to read my article if

you actually have any interest in the facts of the matter--which you clearly don't!

Even Posner admitted that the M-C had a muzzle velocity of 2,000 pfs. Check it.

quote name='Mike Williams' date='May 14 2010, 10:59 PM' post='192779']

Bullet velocity and mass will affect the nature of wounding. Velocity is classified as low (<1000 fps), medium (1000 to 2000 fps), and high (>2000 fps). (Wilson, 1977)

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORI...NS/GUNBLST.html

Additionally Oswalds rifle held an average velocity of 2165fps per Frazier (WCH3p399-400)

But dont let the facts slow you down Jim.

As usual you have no clue what you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

You haven't even had time to read my article. And, if you actually had read it, you would not be citing Frazier as a source. True to form, you appear to be faking it all the way:

Fallacy #8: page 104, lines 27 to 30:

Posner: "The 6.5 mm bullet, when fired, is like a flying drill," says Art Pence, a competitions firearms expert. Some game hunters use the 6.5 mm shell to bring down animals as large as elephants."

This passage combines fallacies of equivocation and appeals to authority with the argumentative strategy known as divide and conquer. Note that the "firearms experts" upon whom Posner relies are Art Pence, who is said to be a "competitions firearms expert", and Robert Frazier, the FBI "firearms expert". Competition firearms is a distinct class of weapons from big game weapons which is a distinct class of weapons from handguns and machine guns which is a distinct class of weapons from military rifles (among which the Mannlicher-Carcano is especially obscure). See, for example, Fadala's Rifle Guide, Leyson's New Guns Annual, or Quertermous and Quertermous' Modern Guns and other similar references. Merely because Art Pence may be an expert on competition firearms does not make him an expert on military firearms, especially obscure ones. Moreover, I nowhere find Frazier described except as a "firearms expert", but his area of expertise could be that of handguns and machine guns (with which the FBI is undoubtedly familiar) rather than of military firearms, especially obscure ones. Thus, the use of the term "firearms expert" might be based upon his knowledge with respect to weapons of one kind and conceal his actual ignorance with respect to weapons of another kind. That is the fallacy of equivocation. When you appeal to an expert in one field as an authority in another in relation to which he is not expert, however, you also commit a fallacious appeal to authority. In this instance, the equivocation is used to conceal a probably fallacious appeal to authority. The divide and conquer move is actually fascinating. If you cannot defeat an argument, then divide it into parts and defeat its parts. In this case, if you cannot exonerate the Mannlicher-Carcano as a half-way decent weapon, then separate the rifle from its bullets and exonerate the bullets. The actual effects of firing any rifle, of course, results from the interaction of various factors, including the rifle, the ammunition, the shooter and the target, so perhaps you can make a more plausible case for the bullet than you can for the rifle. (That this is doubtful in this case is suggested by the discussion of Fallacy #4, but perhaps it's worth a try, if your other arguments are not doing the job.) The elephant hunting allusion intrigued me, so I was dumbstruck when I discovered the following comments on 6.5 mm ammunition in Fadala's Rifle Guide, pp. 38-39: "The 6.5 mm was the darling of the rich and famous hunters of the early 1900s who carried the Mannlicher carbine all over the world. A few hunted elephants with the little gun. Even Elmer Keith, the big-bore guru, stated in American Rifleman magazine that the 6.5 mm was deadlier that its bore size." This sounds like something Posner could have used, except that the Mannlicher that the rich and famous hunters carried all over the world in the early 1900s was a high-quality rifle produced in the 1890s and not the shoddy Mannlicher-Carcano of World War II. (See Peterson, Encyclopedia of Firearms, pp. 195-196, on the Mannlicher, Quertemous and Quertemous, Modern Guns, p. 202, on the Mannlicher-Carcano.)

We have: http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html You lost.

Monk,

Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment,

which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559:

From #2558:

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

From #2559:

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a

Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle

velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me

have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity

bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have

fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy

says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say:

"Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot

possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his

posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen.

Jim

When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.

Mike Williams

Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course.

Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so...

Jim,

Any time you would like to debate ballistics with me, just let me know. You think O'Reily made you look like a moron, you have not seen anything yet.

Mike

That is one of the most moronic ballistic writings I have ever read. I should have known who the author was.

By the way Jim, writing an idiotic paper does not constitute a debate with me on ballistics, what it does is shows your ignorance of the subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't even had time to read my article. And, if you actually had read it, you would not be citing Frazier as a source. True to form, you appear to be faking it all the way:

Fallacy #8: page 104, lines 27 to 30:

Posner: "The 6.5 mm bullet, when fired, is like a flying drill," says Art Pence, a competitions firearms expert. Some game hunters use the 6.5 mm shell to bring down animals as large as elephants."

This passage combines fallacies of equivocation and appeals to authority with the argumentative strategy known as divide and conquer. Note that the "firearms experts" upon whom Posner relies are Art Pence, who is said to be a "competitions firearms expert", and Robert Frazier, the FBI "firearms expert". Competition firearms is a distinct class of weapons from big game weapons which is a distinct class of weapons from handguns and machine guns which is a distinct class of weapons from military rifles (among which the Mannlicher-Carcano is especially obscure). See, for example, Fadala's Rifle Guide, Leyson's New Guns Annual, or Quertermous and Quertermous' Modern Guns and other similar references. Merely because Art Pence may be an expert on competition firearms does not make him an expert on military firearms, especially obscure ones. Moreover, I nowhere find Frazier described except as a "firearms expert", but his area of expertise could be that of handguns and machine guns (with which the FBI is undoubtedly familiar) rather than of military firearms, especially obscure ones. Thus, the use of the term "firearms expert" might be based upon his knowledge with respect to weapons of one kind and conceal his actual ignorance with respect to weapons of another kind. That is the fallacy of equivocation. When you appeal to an expert in one field as an authority in another in relation to which he is not expert, however, you also commit a fallacious appeal to authority. In this instance, the equivocation is used to conceal a probably fallacious appeal to authority. The divide and conquer move is actually fascinating. If you cannot defeat an argument, then divide it into parts and defeat its parts. In this case, if you cannot exonerate the Mannlicher-Carcano as a half-way decent weapon, then separate the rifle from its bullets and exonerate the bullets. The actual effects of firing any rifle, of course, results from the interaction of various factors, including the rifle, the ammunition, the shooter and the target, so perhaps you can make a more plausible case for the bullet than you can for the rifle. (That this is doubtful in this case is suggested by the discussion of Fallacy #4, but perhaps it's worth a try, if your other arguments are not doing the job.) The elephant hunting allusion intrigued me, so I was dumbstruck when I discovered the following comments on 6.5 mm ammunition in Fadala's Rifle Guide, pp. 38-39: "The 6.5 mm was the darling of the rich and famous hunters of the early 1900s who carried the Mannlicher carbine all over the world. A few hunted elephants with the little gun. Even Elmer Keith, the big-bore guru, stated in American Rifleman magazine that the 6.5 mm was deadlier that its bore size." This sounds like something Posner could have used, except that the Mannlicher that the rich and famous hunters carried all over the world in the early 1900s was a high-quality rifle produced in the 1890s and not the shoddy Mannlicher-Carcano of World War II. (See Peterson, Encyclopedia of Firearms, pp. 195-196, on the Mannlicher, Quertemous and Quertemous, Modern Guns, p. 202, on the Mannlicher-Carcano.)

We have: http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html You lost.

Monk,

Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment,

which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559:

From #2558:

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

From #2559:

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a

Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle

velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me

have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity

bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have

fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy

says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say:

"Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot

possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his

posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen.

Jim

When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.

Mike Williams

Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course.

Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so...

Jim,

Any time you would like to debate ballistics with me, just let me know. You think O'Reily made you look like a moron, you have not seen anything yet.

Mike

That is one of the most moronic ballistic writings I have ever read. I should have known who the author was.

By the way Jim, writing an idiotic paper does not constitute a debate with me on ballistics, what it does is shows your ignorance of the subject matter.

I read the article, it was worth the laugh.

SO you question Fraziers expertise in regard to rifles in particular. Speculating that of course maybe he was no expert with rifles but rather Machine guns and/ or handguns. Comical. Handgun and machine gun cartridge velocities are calculated exactly the same as rifle cartridges, so I feel Frazier was competent enough to make a simple velocity calculation, which was what I cited him on.

Regardless.

Had you done any research on Frazier you would easily find that:

Mr. EISENBERG - Could you briefly state your training and experience in the fields of firearms, firearms identification, and ballistics?

Mr. FRAZIER - Beginning in 1937, I was on the University of Idaho Rifle Team, and the following year, 1938. In 1939 I enlisted in the National Guard and for 2 years was on the National Guard Rifle Team firing both small bore, or .22 caliber weapons, and the large bore, .30 caliber weapons, both being of the bolt- action type weapons.

In 1939 and 1940 I instructed in firearms in the Army of the United States, and acquired additional experience in firing of weapons, training in firing at moving targets, additional training in firing the .45 caliber automatic and machine-guns. And to further my firearms, practical firearms training, I received in 1942 a training course offered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation after entering on duty with that organization in--on June 9, 1941. That firearms training course consisted of a basic training in handguns-- that is, revolvers and automatic pistols, training in autoloading rifles, training in submachine guns, shotguns, and various other types of firearms.

One year later, approximately 1943, I received a specialized administrative firearms course which qualified me for training other agents in the field of law-enforcement type firearms.

Over the past 23 years, I have received the regular FBI firearms training, which is a monthly retraining in firearms, and a periodic, or every 4 years, de tailed retraining in the basic FBI firearms--the firearms training with the rifle, submachine gun, shotgun, revolver.

Your challenge of Fraziers qualifications is idiotic at best, and borders on feeble stupidity. His qualifications are right there in his WC testimony.

So this appears to be strike two Jim.

Your wrong about the term high velocity, as Pat has corrected you so many times, and you did not even take the time to review Fraziers qualifications before dismissing his claims.

What kind of research is this?

As for claiming that Frazier was not a "firearms expert", how could you be so obtuse as to have made such an idiotic remark?

Jim please tell me this is not all you have. Debating you so far has been like besting Helen Keller at a game of darts.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike my article, which was based upon the study of multiple sources, where

I made a point of looking for those that were published around the time of the

assassination, this one you seem to have pulled from you rear has nothing to do

with the Mannlicher-Carcano. So you are faking it, just as it you seem to be faking

your standing as a Master Gunnery Sergeant. You might want to read my article if

you actually have any interest in the facts of the matter--which you clearly don't!

Even Posner admitted that the M-C had a muzzle velocity of 2,000 pfs. Check it.

quote name='Mike Williams' date='May 14 2010, 10:59 PM' post='192779']

Bullet velocity and mass will affect the nature of wounding. Velocity is classified as low (<1000 fps), medium (1000 to 2000 fps), and high (>2000 fps). (Wilson, 1977)

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORI...NS/GUNBLST.html

Additionally Oswalds rifle held an average velocity of 2165fps per Frazier (WCH3p399-400)

But dont let the facts slow you down Jim.

As usual you have no clue what you are talking about.

Jim,

How typical of you. Posner may have said it was 2000fps, but Frazier actually tested the rifle. Who would you think would be more credible?

Multiple tests show the average velocity is 2165fps, which is in the high velocity range. Furthermore in 1963 the term high velocity would have been just as subjective as it is today. Again Mr. Speer appears to be correct in a matter that you seem incompetent to comprehend.

Of course as you so often do you cite the source that is the least accurate because it seems to hold with whatever point you are fumbling to make. You are a snake oil salesman.

Now this appears to be strike 3 Jim.

I hope you have better than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feeble response, but no doubt the best you could do. He was a "firearms expert", but with respect to tommy guns and .45s, not

obscure WWII Italian carbines, such as the one Lee Oswald was alleged to have used. It's a simple "fallacy of equivocation"

but slick enough to take in a "lone-nutter"! Have you ever actually studied the evidence? Thinking clearly is not your long suit.

Jim,

What ever gave you the idea that he was only an expert in "tommy guns and .45's"?

When in fact Frazier shot on a rifle team for a number of years.

So far you have not put me in a position to have to think at all, besting you has been a simple matter of displaying very simple to find testimony. As I said, about as difficult as beating Helen Keller at darts.

I would also note that the 6.5mm rifle is not obscure at all and is in point of fact a very well regarded hunting rifle in Europe to this day. I do not know where you come up with such nonsense.

So i have to return the question to you, have you studied the evidence at all? I suggest you study some ballistics before you give yourself a real case of athletes tongue. Obviously this is an area you know very little about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, I know that others, including Weisberg, for whom I have a great deal of respect, have been making the "Mannlicher-Carcano rifles weren't high-velocity weapons" argument for 30 years or more. Which is why I accepted it for several years. UNTIL I started reading books and articles on wound ballistics. As stated, you will not find pre-assassination references to WWII rifles as medium velocity weapons.

The argument is a red herring. In your article you acknowledge:

Since John Withers observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact meaning" (Precision Handloading, p. 135), I looked for evidence indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an essentially similar meaning around the time of the assassination. Leyson's New Guns Annual (1961), p. 19, describes a 170 grain, .30/30 bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a "heavier bullet of slower velocity" than the high velocity bullets he has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a velocity of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 bullet is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is still described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports the description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity weapon in technical terms that have been constant since at least 1961.

This proves my point. The article does not claim a bullet traveling at 1890 FPS is symptomatic of a medium velocity or low velocity weapon, it says merely that such a bullet is traveling at a "slower velocity" than the higher velocity bullets discussed elsewhere in the article. Your claim that this "supports the description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity weapon" is just not true, and is akin to saying that because LeBron James is shorter than Shaquille O'Neal, we can consider him a "short" man.

Pat,

Many others have studied this matter and concluded as I have concluded:

Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH (1965), Peter Model and Robert Groden,

JFK: THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY (1976), and Robert Groden and Harry

Livingstone, HIGH TREASON (1989). If you read MURDER IN DEALEY

PLAZA (2000), you would know that. It's "Smoking Gun #3" on page 5.

I did a study of a page from CASE CLOSED (2003) where I discussed this,

"Artful Deceptions and Other Fallacies", in THE FOURTH DECADE (January

1998), pp. 8-12, and http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html

As with respect to the medical evidence, this appears to be another case

where you insist you are right when you are actually wrong. Check it out.

Jim

Monk,

Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment,

which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559:

From #2558:

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

From #2559:

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a

Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle

velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me

have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity

bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have

fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy

says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say:

"Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot

possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his

posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen.

Jim

When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.

Mike Williams

Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course.

Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so...

Jim, I have tried to correct you on this before, but you apparently refuse to let go of a factoid once in your bear-like grip.

The "high-velocity" argument is a flawed one. At the time of the Kennedy assassination, there were but two ways to describe the velocity of a rifle: Low velocity and High-velocity. All rifle wounds outside of those created by .22s and varmint rifles were considered high-velocity. The dividing line was basically the speed of sound. Subsonic=Low velocity. Supersonic=high velocity. Some books still use this dividing line today.

However, with the development of the M-16, and the increased velocity of similar weapons, SOME writers and researchers moved the line upward, and started calling rifles that fire bullets 2400 FPS or greater high-velocity, and bullets traveling above the speed of sound, but below 2400 FPS. medium velocity.

Even this, however, is not written in concrete, as I have seen some RECENT articles claiming the dividing line is 2000 FPS.

In short, there is not a strict definition of high-velocity and medium velocity that rules out the M/C rifle as the assassination rifle. Not in 1963. Not today.

If you know any different, please cite articles from the 50's and before that discuss medium-velocity weapons and ammunition. I've read dozens of books and articles on wound ballistics and haven't seen any prior to the assassination that referred to WW-II era rifle ammunition as medium velocity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Pat,

Here is my suggestion as an exercise in concept formation. Create a list of the weapons discussed in my article,

for example, ranked by their muzzle velocities, including 30.06, M-1, Mannlicher-Carcano and so on and see how

it lays out. Determine if there are many weapons with velocities above 2,000 pfs and how many are below. See

if there are clusters, say, around 3,000 fps, 2,500 fps, and so on. Then ask what would make sense as a form of

short-hand to refer to those in the highest cluster, the middle cluster, and those below. That should provide you

with a rough handle on the meaning of "high", "medium", and "low" velocity. In particular, if there turn out to be

many weapons with velocities higher than the Mannlicher-Carano, what would they be called if we were to call the

Mannlicher-Carcano "high velocity"? I think you are the right person to pursue this. And I recommend using the

data from my article in conducting this survey, since I made a point of using sources that were contemporaneous

with the assassination to insure they were not affected by intel agencies who were trying to diminish the point I,

Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden and Peter Model, and Harry Livingstone were making. See if we were right or

not. And toss in more recent data if you like. Let's see where all this comes out about the phrase "high velocity".

Many thanks!

Jim

Jim, I know that others, including Weisberg, for whom I have a great deal of respect, have been making the "Mannlicher-Carcano rifles weren't high-velocity weapons" argument for 30 years or more. Which is why I accepted it for several years. UNTIL I started reading books and articles on wound ballistics. As stated, you will not find pre-assassination references to WWII rifles as medium velocity weapons.

The argument is a red herring. In your article you acknowledge:

Since John Withers observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact meaning" (Precision Handloading, p. 135), I looked for evidence indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an essentially similar meaning around the time of the assassination. Leyson's New Guns Annual (1961), p. 19, describes a 170 grain, .30/30 bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a "heavier bullet of slower velocity" than the high velocity bullets he has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a velocity of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 bullet is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is still described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports the description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity weapon in technical terms that have been constant since at least 1961.

This proves my point. The article does not claim a bullet traveling at 1890 FPS is symptomatic of a medium velocity or low velocity weapon, it says merely that such a bullet is traveling at a "slower velocity" than the higher velocity bullets discussed elsewhere in the article. Your claim that this "supports the description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity weapon" is just not true, and is akin to saying that because LeBron James is shorter than Shaquille O'Neal, we can consider him a "short" man.

Pat,

Many others have studied this matter and concluded as I have concluded:

Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH (1965), Peter Model and Robert Groden,

JFK: THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY (1976), and Robert Groden and Harry

Livingstone, HIGH TREASON (1989). If you read MURDER IN DEALEY

PLAZA (2000), you would know that. It's "Smoking Gun #3" on page 5.

I did a study of a page from CASE CLOSED (2003) where I discussed this,

"Artful Deceptions and Other Fallacies", in THE FOURTH DECADE (January

1998), pp. 8-12, and http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html

As with respect to the medical evidence, this appears to be another case

where you insist you are right when you are actually wrong. Check it out.

Jim

Monk,

Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment,

which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559:

From #2558:

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

From #2559:

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a

Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle

velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me

have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity

bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have

fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy

says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say:

"Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot

possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his

posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen.

Jim

When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.

Mike Williams

Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course.

Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so...

Jim, I have tried to correct you on this before, but you apparently refuse to let go of a factoid once in your bear-like grip.

The "high-velocity" argument is a flawed one. At the time of the Kennedy assassination, there were but two ways to describe the velocity of a rifle: Low velocity and High-velocity. All rifle wounds outside of those created by .22s and varmint rifles were considered high-velocity. The dividing line was basically the speed of sound. Subsonic=Low velocity. Supersonic=high velocity. Some books still use this dividing line today.

However, with the development of the M-16, and the increased velocity of similar weapons, SOME writers and researchers moved the line upward, and started calling rifles that fire bullets 2400 FPS or greater high-velocity, and bullets traveling above the speed of sound, but below 2400 FPS. medium velocity.

Even this, however, is not written in concrete, as I have seen some RECENT articles claiming the dividing line is 2000 FPS.

In short, there is not a strict definition of high-velocity and medium velocity that rules out the M/C rifle as the assassination rifle. Not in 1963. Not today.

If you know any different, please cite articles from the 50's and before that discuss medium-velocity weapons and ammunition. I've read dozens of books and articles on wound ballistics and haven't seen any prior to the assassination that referred to WW-II era rifle ammunition as medium velocity.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

Here is my suggestion as an exercise in concept formation. Create a list of the weapons discussed in my article,

for example, ranked by their muzzle velocities, including 30.06, M-1, Mannlicher-Carcano and so on and see how

it lays out. Determine if there are many weapons with velocities above 2,000 pfs and how many are below. See

if there are clusters, say, around 3,000 fps, 2,500 fps, and so on. Then ask what would make sense as a form of

short-hand to refer to those in the highest cluster, the middle cluster, and those below. That should provide you

with a rough handle on the meaning of "high", "medium", and "low" velocity. In particular, if there turn out to be

many weapons with velocities higher than the Mannlicher-Carano, what would they be called if we were to call the

Mannlicher-Carcano "high velocity"? I think you are the right person to pursue this. And I recommend using the

data from my article in conducting this survey, since I made a point of using sources that were contemporaneous

with the assassination to insure they were not affected by intel agencies who were trying to diminish the point I,

Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden and Peter Model, and Harry Livingstone were making. See if we were right or

not. And toss in more recent data if you like. Let's see where all this comes out about the phrase "high velocity".

Many thanks!

Jim

Jim, I know that others, including Weisberg, for whom I have a great deal of respect, have been making the "Mannlicher-Carcano rifles weren't high-velocity weapons" argument for 30 years or more. Which is why I accepted it for several years. UNTIL I started reading books and articles on wound ballistics. As stated, you will not find pre-assassination references to WWII rifles as medium velocity weapons.

The argument is a red herring. In your article you acknowledge:

Since John Withers observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact meaning" (Precision Handloading, p. 135), I looked for evidence indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an essentially similar meaning around the time of the assassination. Leyson's New Guns Annual (1961), p. 19, describes a 170 grain, .30/30 bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a "heavier bullet of slower velocity" than the high velocity bullets he has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a velocity of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 bullet is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is still described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports the description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity weapon in technical terms that have been constant since at least 1961.

This proves my point. The article does not claim a bullet traveling at 1890 FPS is symptomatic of a medium velocity or low velocity weapon, it says merely that such a bullet is traveling at a "slower velocity" than the higher velocity bullets discussed elsewhere in the article. Your claim that this "supports the description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity weapon" is just not true, and is akin to saying that because LeBron James is shorter than Shaquille O'Neal, we can consider him a "short" man.

Pat,

Many others have studied this matter and concluded as I have concluded:

Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH (1965), Peter Model and Robert Groden,

JFK: THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY (1976), and Robert Groden and Harry

Livingstone, HIGH TREASON (1989). If you read MURDER IN DEALEY

PLAZA (2000), you would know that. It's "Smoking Gun #3" on page 5.

I did a study of a page from CASE CLOSED (2003) where I discussed this,

"Artful Deceptions and Other Fallacies", in THE FOURTH DECADE (January

1998), pp. 8-12, and http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html

As with respect to the medical evidence, this appears to be another case

where you insist you are right when you are actually wrong. Check it out.

Jim

Monk,

Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment,

which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559:

From #2558:

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

From #2559:

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a

Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle

velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me

have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity

bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have

fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy

says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say:

"Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot

possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his

posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen.

Jim

When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.

Mike Williams

Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course.

Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so...

Jim, I have tried to correct you on this before, but you apparently refuse to let go of a factoid once in your bear-like grip.

The "high-velocity" argument is a flawed one. At the time of the Kennedy assassination, there were but two ways to describe the velocity of a rifle: Low velocity and High-velocity. All rifle wounds outside of those created by .22s and varmint rifles were considered high-velocity. The dividing line was basically the speed of sound. Subsonic=Low velocity. Supersonic=high velocity. Some books still use this dividing line today.

However, with the development of the M-16, and the increased velocity of similar weapons, SOME writers and researchers moved the line upward, and started calling rifles that fire bullets 2400 FPS or greater high-velocity, and bullets traveling above the speed of sound, but below 2400 FPS. medium velocity.

Even this, however, is not written in concrete, as I have seen some RECENT articles claiming the dividing line is 2000 FPS.

In short, there is not a strict definition of high-velocity and medium velocity that rules out the M/C rifle as the assassination rifle. Not in 1963. Not today.

If you know any different, please cite articles from the 50's and before that discuss medium-velocity weapons and ammunition. I've read dozens of books and articles on wound ballistics and haven't seen any prior to the assassination that referred to WW-II era rifle ammunition as medium velocity.

Thankfully we dont have to make Pat suffer all of that as the terminology is rather well defined.

Bullet velocity and mass will affect the nature of wounding. Velocity is classified as low (<1000 fps), medium (1000 to 2000 fps), and high (>2000 fps). (Wilson, 1977)

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORI...NS/GUNBLST.html

For those who missed it the first time.

Oswalds rifle tested at 2165fps.

Its really that simple.

Edited by Mike Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Pat,

Give this a shot (not to make a pun). 2,000 fps is not high-velocity. If you want a short-cut, try this:

"Bullet Trajectory: Fact and Myth", by Mike Nelson

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bullet_trajectory.htm

Velocity. The velocity is a factor in determining energy on impact and the horizontal velocity determines how far the bullet travels before it hits the ground. The above illustrations apply to all ballistic projectiles whether bullets, rocks, or ping pong balls.

Low Velocity Bullets. Bullets at nominally 800 fps to perhaps 1600 fps, such as 22 LR, most pistols, and older rifle cartridges, must follow a rather high arc in order to reach a target 100 yards away. In fact, most of these slower cartridges are only useful to about 50 yards, perhaps 75 yards for some in the upper end of this range.

High Velocity Bullets. Bullets at 2600 fps and up, such as the .223, 22-250, .243/6mm, .270, .308, 30-06, follow a much lower arc to reach a target, and their useful range can be upward of 200 yards. These are often referred to as "flatter" trajectories. With higher velocities, these bullets go much further before gravity and air resistance cause them to fall below the initial line of sight.

Mike Nelson knows his stuff. There are others around here who don't. You can probably figure it out.

Jim

Pat,

Here is my suggestion as an exercise in concept formation. Create a list of the weapons discussed in my article,

for example, ranked by their muzzle velocities, including 30.06, M-1, Mannlicher-Carcano and so on and see how

it lays out. Determine if there are many weapons with velocities above 2,000 pfs and how many are below. See

if there are clusters, say, around 3,000 fps, 2,500 fps, and so on. Then ask what would make sense as a form of

short-hand to refer to those in the highest cluster, the middle cluster, and those below. That should provide you

with a rough handle on the meaning of "high", "medium", and "low" velocity. In particular, if there turn out to be

many weapons with velocities higher than the Mannlicher-Carano, what would they be called if we were to call the

Mannlicher-Carcano "high velocity"? I think you are the right person to pursue this. And I recommend using the

data from my article in conducting this survey, since I made a point of using sources that were contemporaneous

with the assassination to insure they were not affected by intel agencies who were trying to diminish the point I,

Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden and Peter Model, and Harry Livingstone were making. See if we were right or

not. And toss in more recent data if you like. Let's see where all this comes out about the phrase "high velocity".

Many thanks!

Jim

Jim, I know that others, including Weisberg, for whom I have a great deal of respect, have been making the "Mannlicher-Carcano rifles weren't high-velocity weapons" argument for 30 years or more. Which is why I accepted it for several years. UNTIL I started reading books and articles on wound ballistics. As stated, you will not find pre-assassination references to WWII rifles as medium velocity weapons.

The argument is a red herring. In your article you acknowledge:

Since John Withers observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact meaning" (Precision Handloading, p. 135), I looked for evidence indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an essentially similar meaning around the time of the assassination. Leyson's New Guns Annual (1961), p. 19, describes a 170 grain, .30/30 bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a "heavier bullet of slower velocity" than the high velocity bullets he has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a velocity of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 bullet is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is still described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports the description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity weapon in technical terms that have been constant since at least 1961.

This proves my point. The article does not claim a bullet traveling at 1890 FPS is symptomatic of a medium velocity or low velocity weapon, it says merely that such a bullet is traveling at a "slower velocity" than the higher velocity bullets discussed elsewhere in the article. Your claim that this "supports the description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity weapon" is just not true, and is akin to saying that because LeBron James is shorter than Shaquille O'Neal, we can consider him a "short" man.

Pat,

Many others have studied this matter and concluded as I have concluded:

Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH (1965), Peter Model and Robert Groden,

JFK: THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY (1976), and Robert Groden and Harry

Livingstone, HIGH TREASON (1989). If you read MURDER IN DEALEY

PLAZA (2000), you would know that. It's "Smoking Gun #3" on page 5.

I did a study of a page from CASE CLOSED (2003) where I discussed this,

"Artful Deceptions and Other Fallacies", in THE FOURTH DECADE (January

1998), pp. 8-12, and http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html

As with respect to the medical evidence, this appears to be another case

where you insist you are right when you are actually wrong. Check it out.

Jim

Monk,

Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment,

which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559:

From #2558:

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

From #2559:

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a

Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle

velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me

have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity

bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have

fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy

says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say:

"Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot

possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his

posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen.

Jim

When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.

Mike Williams

Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course.

Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so...

Jim, I have tried to correct you on this before, but you apparently refuse to let go of a factoid once in your bear-like grip.

The "high-velocity" argument is a flawed one. At the time of the Kennedy assassination, there were but two ways to describe the velocity of a rifle: Low velocity and High-velocity. All rifle wounds outside of those created by .22s and varmint rifles were considered high-velocity. The dividing line was basically the speed of sound. Subsonic=Low velocity. Supersonic=high velocity. Some books still use this dividing line today.

However, with the development of the M-16, and the increased velocity of similar weapons, SOME writers and researchers moved the line upward, and started calling rifles that fire bullets 2400 FPS or greater high-velocity, and bullets traveling above the speed of sound, but below 2400 FPS. medium velocity.

Even this, however, is not written in concrete, as I have seen some RECENT articles claiming the dividing line is 2000 FPS.

In short, there is not a strict definition of high-velocity and medium velocity that rules out the M/C rifle as the assassination rifle. Not in 1963. Not today.

If you know any different, please cite articles from the 50's and before that discuss medium-velocity weapons and ammunition. I've read dozens of books and articles on wound ballistics and haven't seen any prior to the assassination that referred to WW-II era rifle ammunition as medium velocity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

Give this a shot (not to make a pun). 2,000 fps is not high-velocity. If you want a short-cut, try this:

"Bullet Trajectory: Fact and Myth", by Mike Nelson

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bullet_trajectory.htm

Velocity. The velocity is a factor in determining energy on impact and the horizontal velocity determines how far the bullet travels before it hits the ground. The above illustrations apply to all ballistic projectiles whether bullets, rocks, or ping pong balls.

Low Velocity Bullets. Bullets at nominally 800 fps to perhaps 1600 fps, such as 22 LR, most pistols, and older rifle cartridges, must follow a rather high arc in order to reach a target 100 yards away. In fact, most of these slower cartridges are only useful to about 50 yards, perhaps 75 yards for some in the upper end of this range.

High Velocity Bullets. Bullets at 2600 fps and up, such as the .223, 22-250, .243/6mm, .270, .308, 30-06, follow a much lower arc to reach a target, and their useful range can be upward of 200 yards. These are often referred to as "flatter" trajectories. With higher velocities, these bullets go much further before gravity and air resistance cause them to fall below the initial line of sight.

Mike Nelson knows his stuff. There are others around here who don't. You can probably figure it out.

Jim

Pat,

Here is my suggestion as an exercise in concept formation. Create a list of the weapons discussed in my article,

for example, ranked by their muzzle velocities, including 30.06, M-1, Mannlicher-Carcano and so on and see how

it lays out. Determine if there are many weapons with velocities above 2,000 pfs and how many are below. See

if there are clusters, say, around 3,000 fps, 2,500 fps, and so on. Then ask what would make sense as a form of

short-hand to refer to those in the highest cluster, the middle cluster, and those below. That should provide you

with a rough handle on the meaning of "high", "medium", and "low" velocity. In particular, if there turn out to be

many weapons with velocities higher than the Mannlicher-Carano, what would they be called if we were to call the

Mannlicher-Carcano "high velocity"? I think you are the right person to pursue this. And I recommend using the

data from my article in conducting this survey, since I made a point of using sources that were contemporaneous

with the assassination to insure they were not affected by intel agencies who were trying to diminish the point I,

Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden and Peter Model, and Harry Livingstone were making. See if we were right or

not. And toss in more recent data if you like. Let's see where all this comes out about the phrase "high velocity".

Many thanks!

Jim

Jim, I know that others, including Weisberg, for whom I have a great deal of respect, have been making the "Mannlicher-Carcano rifles weren't high-velocity weapons" argument for 30 years or more. Which is why I accepted it for several years. UNTIL I started reading books and articles on wound ballistics. As stated, you will not find pre-assassination references to WWII rifles as medium velocity weapons.

The argument is a red herring. In your article you acknowledge:

Since John Withers observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact meaning" (Precision Handloading, p. 135), I looked for evidence indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an essentially similar meaning around the time of the assassination. Leyson's New Guns Annual (1961), p. 19, describes a 170 grain, .30/30 bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a "heavier bullet of slower velocity" than the high velocity bullets he has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a velocity of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 bullet is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is still described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports the description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity weapon in technical terms that have been constant since at least 1961.

This proves my point. The article does not claim a bullet traveling at 1890 FPS is symptomatic of a medium velocity or low velocity weapon, it says merely that such a bullet is traveling at a "slower velocity" than the higher velocity bullets discussed elsewhere in the article. Your claim that this "supports the description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity weapon" is just not true, and is akin to saying that because LeBron James is shorter than Shaquille O'Neal, we can consider him a "short" man.

Pat,

Many others have studied this matter and concluded as I have concluded:

Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH (1965), Peter Model and Robert Groden,

JFK: THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY (1976), and Robert Groden and Harry

Livingstone, HIGH TREASON (1989). If you read MURDER IN DEALEY

PLAZA (2000), you would know that. It's "Smoking Gun #3" on page 5.

I did a study of a page from CASE CLOSED (2003) where I discussed this,

"Artful Deceptions and Other Fallacies", in THE FOURTH DECADE (January

1998), pp. 8-12, and http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html

As with respect to the medical evidence, this appears to be another case

where you insist you are right when you are actually wrong. Check it out.

Jim

Monk,

Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment,

which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559:

From #2558:

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

From #2559:

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a

Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle

velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me

have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity

bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have

fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy

says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say:

"Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot

possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his

posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen.

Jim

When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.

Mike Williams

Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course.

Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so...

Jim, I have tried to correct you on this before, but you apparently refuse to let go of a factoid once in your bear-like grip.

The "high-velocity" argument is a flawed one. At the time of the Kennedy assassination, there were but two ways to describe the velocity of a rifle: Low velocity and High-velocity. All rifle wounds outside of those created by .22s and varmint rifles were considered high-velocity. The dividing line was basically the speed of sound. Subsonic=Low velocity. Supersonic=high velocity. Some books still use this dividing line today.

However, with the development of the M-16, and the increased velocity of similar weapons, SOME writers and researchers moved the line upward, and started calling rifles that fire bullets 2400 FPS or greater high-velocity, and bullets traveling above the speed of sound, but below 2400 FPS. medium velocity.

Even this, however, is not written in concrete, as I have seen some RECENT articles claiming the dividing line is 2000 FPS.

In short, there is not a strict definition of high-velocity and medium velocity that rules out the M/C rifle as the assassination rifle. Not in 1963. Not today.

If you know any different, please cite articles from the 50's and before that discuss medium-velocity weapons and ammunition. I've read dozens of books and articles on wound ballistics and haven't seen any prior to the assassination that referred to WW-II era rifle ammunition as medium velocity.

I almost laughed when I read that.

I think I would have chosen an "authority" that did not use the term "perhaps" in defining the velocities.

So your example is giving us his "guess" as to what the velocity range is.

I prefer to accept the example from an educational resource.

Even more intriguing is how you know Mike Nelson to be one who "knows his stuff". Do you know him personally?

Do you know Chuck Hawks?

So what possible basis could you define your opinion of the man, other than the fact that he agrees with Jim Fetzer, who has proven time and again to be a complete imbecile when dealing with ballistics?

Normally I would take a man's word for recommending another persons opinion. In this case, and with your gross and obvious lack of honor, and ability, I have so ask.

HOW DO YOU KNOW MIKE NELSON "KNOWS HIS STUFF"?

By the way Jim, the Nelson article was not about velocity at all, it was about trajectory and the arch as it pertains to long distance shooting.

You really should run your mouth only about things you actually know about.....but then....

It would get might quiet around here.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost laughed when I read that. I think I would have chosen an "authority" that did not use the term "perhaps" in defining the velocities. So your example is giving us his "guess" as to what the velocity range is. I prefer to accept the example from an educational resource.

Even more intriguing is how you know Mike Nelson to be one who "knows his stuff". Do you know him personally? Do you know Chuck Hawks?

So what possible basis could you define your opinion of the man, other than the fact that he agrees with Jim Fetzer, who has proven time and again to be a complete imbecile when dealing with ballistics? Normally I would take a man's word for recommending another persons opinion. In this case, and with your gross and obvious lack of honor, and ability, I have so ask.

HOW DO YOU KNOW MIKE NELSON "KNOWS HIS STUFF"?

By the way Jim, the Nelson article was not about velocity at all, it was about trajectory and the arch as it pertains to long distance shooting.

You really should run your mouth only about things you actually know about.....but then....

It would get might quiet around here.....

Hey Mike,

Just out of curiosity, what's your day job? How do we know you are an expert in ballistics? I'm not doubting it, I just would like to know your qualifications to render judgments on these matters. Is there anyone who can vouch for your expertise?

Thanks--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...