Fetzer takes ballistics 101!

[Todd W. Vaughan]

A ‘”bizarre” source?

Are you serious?

It’s a U.S Military Field Manual published by the Field Medical Service School at Camp Pendleton, California.

It’s a field manual for the United States Marines!

Please explain what is ‘”bizarre” about it.

You picked a bizarre source, Todd. They classify knives, bayonets, rocks, sticks and glass as "low velocity" missiles. You need to brush up on your sources. This one is obviously not about the use of these terms as they apply to ammunition! And what you cite obviously ignores "medium velocity" missiles. If this was supposed to bolster the position of Mike Williams, it fails miserably. Even on the most charitable interpretation of your source, "medium velocity" missiles would range from 2,000 to 2,500 fps. That does not make a Mannlicher-Carcano with a muzzle velocity of 2,000 fps a "high velocity" weapon. Go back and reread Mike Nelson.

HIGH AND LOW VELOCITY MISSILES

The amount of energy impacting the body is determined by the mass, size and velocity of the missile. Velocity is the primary factor which determines the energy that a missile expends. The terms "high velocity" and "low velocity" are arbitrary with a dividing line from 2,000 to 2,500 feet per second. Most commonly, 2,000 feet per second is the dividing line and will be used throughout this course of instruction.

A. LOW-VELOCITY MISSILES

1. DEFINTION-Any missile traveling at less than 2,000 feet per second ie.Knives, bayonets, bullets, rocks, sticks, glass, etc.

2. DAMAGE- No significant energy is transferred to tissues, therefore only local tissue is damaged and only minimal debridement is required.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The government has been messing with the evidence from scratch. The obvious point that you fail to grasp is, even if one were to be taken in by the claim of a third spent cartridge--which is not present in the evidence photographs published in BLOODY TREASON on page 111 (Exhibit 10-12B), which is followed by Exhibit 10-13A and by Exhibit 10-13B, which display a change in the official report from "2" spent cartridges to "3" and, on the following pages, the change in Exhibit 10-14, which shows two spent cartridges, to Exhibit 10-15, which shows a third introduced by obvious photographic fakery--it wouldn't change the characteristics of the other two. Similarly, in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, page 365, I reprinted the evidence photograph from Jesse Curry, JFK ASSASSINATION FILE (1969), page 365, which also displays two spent and one live cartridge. <DELETED>

Edited May 22, 2010 by Evan Burton

[Pat Speer]

You picked a bizarre source, Todd. They classify knives, bayonets, rocks, sticks and glass as \\\"low velocity\\\" missiles. You need to brush up on your sources. This one is obviously not about the use of these terms as they apply to ammunition! And what you cite obviously ignores \\\"medium velocity\\\" missiles. If this was supposed to bolster the position of Mike Williams, it fails miserably. Even on the most charitable interpretation of your source, \\\"medium velocity\\\" missiles would range from 2,000 to 2,500 fps. That does not make a Mannlicher-Carcano with a muzzle velocity of 2,000 fps a \\\"high velocity\\\" weapon. Go back and reread Mike Nelson.

Jim, with all due respect, you keep evading the issue. The issue is not whether or not the M/C is a medium-velocity weapon by TODAY\\\'S subjective and erratic standards, but by the subjective and erratic standards of 1963. And it clearly was not.

Now, I full well understand that you did not make up the factoid that \\\"as per the autopsy report, the M/C rifle was not the assassin rifle,\\\" but that doesn\\\'t mean you have to repeat it, and defend it to the death.

Your subject is critical thinking. Be honest with yourself. How likely is it that Humes wrote an autopsy report in which he deliberately included language proving Oswald not the shooter, while at the same time adding all sorts of stuff designed to suggest Oswald was the shooter? (The bits about witnesses hearing three shots and of Robert Jackson seeing a rifle pulled back into the sniper\\\'s nest.)

Is every dumb idea ever spouted which suggests a conspiracy, such as this idea that Humes knew the M/C rifle was not the assassination rifle, worth defending? Of course not.

Save your ammunition. There are plenty of other \\\"smoking guns\\\" worth fighting over!

Edited May 18, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Mike Williams]

You picked a bizarre source, Todd. They classify knives, bayonets, rocks, sticks and glass as "low velocity" missiles.

Of course so does the The University of Utah Eccles Health Sciences Library!

Again and I am typing slower for you Jim:

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

Which is as stated:

"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)"

Of course all of those things ARE low velocity missiles!

<DELETED>

[Todd W. Vaughan]

He has no clue what he is talking about.

In his original claim that the weapon was not high velocity he cited as his "experts” Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden, F. Peter Model, and Harry Livingston.

What a laugh!

Edited May 22, 2010 by Evan Burton

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

Let me say that I appreciate your contributions to this thread far more than those coming from other sources. Suppose we thought that your "medical manual" were good as gold. It omits any category for "medium velocity"! How dumb is that? Moreover, given what it does say about the dividing line, it is consistent with its definitions to take "medium velocity" as from 2,000 to 2,500 fps. By that standard, which is more reasonable that the high/low categorical distinction, the Mannlicher-Carcano is still not "high velocity". I don't understand your defense of Humes, by the way. Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB, has proven that Humes was involved in body alteration (by performing a craniotomy, for example, which was observed by two witnesses) and was otherwise complicit in faking the autopsy report, including later shifting the location of the wound to the back of the head from the EOP to the cowlick. He had to be aware of the massive defect to the back of the head, which Tink's buddy, Gary Aguilar, documented in his contribution to MURDER IN DEAELY PLAZA, and which David W. Mantik exposed in his studies of the X-rays in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. This defect, as Horne explains, was crudely obfuscated by painting it over in black, which he discusses in Volume IV, where, as I have observe in HOAX, you can view the defect for yourself in frames 374 of the Zapruder film. So I like your posts, but you are wrong. And of course the reason it is an inappropriate source is that it is not a study of rifles and ammo. If you read it as I suggest in relation to "medium velocity", however, it would be roughly right.

Jim

Edited May 22, 2010 by Evan Burton

[Mike Williams]

Todd,

Its going to get a lot funnier very soon, look for the new thread that is forthcoming.

Mike

[Glenn Viklund]

He has no clue what he is talking about.

In his original claim that the weapon was not high velocity he cited as his experts” Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden, F. Peter Model, and Harry Livingston.

What a laugh!

Todd,

Its going to get a lot funnier very soon, look for the new thread that is forthcoming.

Mike

Mike, I hope your joking, it's killing me already. :-)

Glenn

[Mike Williams]

He has no clue what he is talking about.

In his original claim that the weapon was not high velocity he cited as his experts” Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden, F. Peter Model, and Harry Livingston.

What a laugh!

Todd,

Its going to get a lot funnier very soon, look for the new thread that is forthcoming.

Mike

Mike, I hope your joking, it's killing me already. :-)

Glenn

I am absolutely NOT joking. You and Todd are going to LOVE this LOL.

[Mike Williams]

As many of you know, Jim has been debating me in another thread on the classifications of projectile velocity.

He has cited an article by Mike Nelson, which in fact was a rather good article. He cites Nelson as an expert in the subject matter, and claims that Nelsons article, found here: http://www.chuckhawks.com/bullet_trajectory.htm , is an authoritative writing on ballistics.

But What does Mike Nelson himself say?

Why we can find it right here at the link right underneath Ball Room Dancing, and Photography!

http://www.jmnelson.com/

See the Guns and Ammo section for the following:

"Most of these articles were the result of our building a shooting range at the family farm and investigating related topics. Though our contribution to the world of shooting information might be minimal, the following articles represent information not readily available to us when we began improving our shooting facilities. There are also a few articles associated with the teaching of Firearm Safety and Hunter Education for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources."

So Mike gained his firearms knowledge while building a shooting range on the family farm. Quite an authority.

I do however say again, his writing on trajectory is quite good, and for the most part, very accurate. I suspect this is because Mike has a MS in Math and Physics. However would this make him an expert in firearms and related topics, of course not. It would however give him the type of knowledge he writes on such as trajectory.

It has been offered to Jim By Todd Vaughn, that"…defines “low velocity” as “Any missile traveling at less than 2,000 feet per second” and “high velocity” as “Projectiles traveling faster than 2,000 feet per second.”

It’s a U.S Military Field Manual published by the Field Medical Service School at Camp Pendleton, California.

It’s a field manual for the United States Marines!

Found here:

http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/Ope...ONSFMST0424.htm

I myself have cited The University of Utah Eccles Health Sciences Library

Which tells us that:

"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)"

Found here:

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

So he has been given two very reliable sources, and yet clings to the writing of a man who learn his stuff building a shooting range on the family farm, when he has time between ball room dancing and photography!

Are you kidding me?

Is THIS critical thinking?

So now once we get past the ridiculousness Fetzer has subject us too, we must ask.

Are we do to discredit two credible definitions of Low velocity for a definition that states:

"Low Velocity Bullets. Bullets at nominally 800 fps to perhaps 1600 fps"

Clearly the cut off by both of the credible and solid sources is 2000fps.

The Mannlicher Carcano as tested had an average muzzle velocity of 2165 FPS (WCH3p400, Frazier)

So then once cornered Fetzer tells us that Frazier is not a reliable source because he was only an expert on .45's and Tommy guns.

This borders on absurd.

I guess he missed where Frazier tells us:

Mr. FRAZIER - I have a science degree which I received from the University of Idaho.

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.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

So here is a classic case of accepting what fits your theory and completely disregarding the actual and credible evidence.

Critical thinking went out the window in this one.......

One would also note here Mike Nelson's words of wisdom:

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/jmnelson/web/index.html

""There is little penalty, and often great reward, for purporting as fact allegations for which one has little or no evidence."

(J M Nelson, c. 1995)"

I believe he is speaking about Fetzer!

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Apparently quoting John Ritchson, Fetzer wrote:

QUOTE ON

The only cartridges produced by Western in the 6.5 mm cali-ber that would

have possessed the factory logo “Western” with the caliber, “6.5 mm” stamped

on the cartridge base would be pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer

factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft round-nosed semi-jacketed bullets.

So what we are dealing with here is two spent cartridges which cannot be

chambered in any Carcano rifle, and a live round that would not have been

made in America.

Simply put, this represents another rather large hole in the Warren Commission

Report, and not only tends to exonerate Lee Oswald as the lone assassin, but

provides prima facie evidence of evidence-tampering and obstruction of justice.

QUOTE OFF

Well, this certainly might be important ground-breaking research if the the factory logo “Western” was in fact actually stamped on the base of the cartridge cases found on the 6th floor.

But the fact is that the cartridge cases found on the 6th floor were stamped "WCC", for Western Cartridge Company. Part of the "W" and all of the "CC" of CE 545, one of the cartridge cases found on the 6th floor, can be seen here...

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=303

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT MIKE WILLIAMS' APPARENT COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT

The case for his cognitive impairment accumulates. As I observed, all Marine Corps officers are trained as

infantry officers first and, in my case, in artillery. No Marine I have ever known has denigrated the service

of another. None of us controls where and how long we serve in specific positions. I was in a staff position

at Regimental Headquarters when I resigned my commission and departed for graduate school. Apparently,

not even four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps stems attacks upon someone's patriotism.

He looked like a fake to me from scratch. Medium velocity is between high and low, so defining them both,

as Mike Nelson has done, implicitly defines "medium velocity" as between 1600 pfs and 2600 pfs, as I would

have supposed anyone who was not cognitively impaired could have figured out for themselves. Notice, too,

that he has offered no original observations of his own but only repeated two diagrams from Nelson's article.

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 Williams' definition of "high velocity" (from 2,000 to 10,000 fps) is absurd, since it obfuscates the kinds of

distinctions Mike Nelson has explained. That he cites Nelson and does not deny his competence impugns Mike

Williams' competence, because he is endorsing an incoherent account, which he reinforces by reprinting those

diagrams from his article. No competent ballistics expert would support the official account of Oswald as the

"lone assassin" unless he had an incentive. Here is a sample of research from a bona fide ballistics expert:

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH

Volume 3, Number 2 (2005)

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2.html

IN MEMORIAM:

VERNON JOHN RITCHSON 1952–2005

JOHN RITCHSON / Biographical Sketch and Final Comments

"One of the areas Mr. Burke and the rest of the lone-nutters are real short on is

authoritative cites in the relevant areas being discussed. Rather, their agenda

appears to be one of debasement and denigration as exemplified by their refer-

ences to me as a faker, fraud, cowardly dog, and buffoon, all in a sophomoric

attempt to trivialize and obfuscate the importance of my and other researchers’

work in this case. These sort of tactics represent the last resort of those who

know in their hearts the essential weakness of their case and are thus reduced

to ad hominem, having failed to produce any real rebuttal. For the record, I am

constantly garnering feedback and opinions from qualified professionals in the

field of firearms ballistics to absolutely minimize any possibility of error before I

even post an article." These observations, I think, apply equally to Mike Williams.

JOHN RITCHSON / Introduction to the Ballistics Evidence

[Editor’s note: John Ritchson enlisted in the US Army in 1969 and served

nearly two tours of duty as a Special Operations Scout before being medi-

cally discharged. He settled in Black Eagle, Montana and opened up the

Black Eagle Gunworks with his father Vernon, who had taught him gun-

smithing and ballistics as a young man. Since 1995 Ritchson used his ex-

pertise to examine the ballistics evidence of the JFK assassination. Here

he presented an introduction to the physics underlying the science of bal-

listics, and explained in simple terms why the Warren Commission failed

in this area of its investigation. John Ritchson died just prior to the publica-

tion of this issue of Assassination Research.]

JOHN RITCHSON / The Rifle: Critique of the Simmons Testimony

[Editor’s note: John Ritchson enlisted in the US Army in 1969 and served

nearly two tours of duty as a Special Operations Scout before being medi-

cally discharged. He settled in Black Eagle, Montana and opened up the

Black Eagle Gunworks with his father Vernon, who had taught him gun-

smithing and ballistics as a young man. Since 1995 Ritchson used his ex-

pertise to examine the ballistics evidence of the JFK assassination. Here

he dissected and critiqued the Warren Commission testimony of Owen

Simmons, which the Commission relied on crucially in trying to argue that

Lee Harvey Oswald could have fired the shots that killed the President.

John Ritchson died just prior to the publication of this issue of Assassina-

tion Research.]

Among the interesting observations by John Ritchson concerned the two

spent shell casings and the single live round that were "found" at the site

of the alleged "assassin's lair" on the 6th floor of the book depository, namely:

The only cartridges produced by Western in the 6.5 mm cali-ber that would

have possessed the factory logo “Western” with the caliber, “6.5 mm” stamped

on the cartridge base would be pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer

factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft round-nosed semi-jacketed bullets.

So what we are dealing with here is two spent cartridges which cannot be

chambered in any Carcano rifle, and a live round that would not have been

made in America.

Simply put, this represents another rather large hole in the Warren Commission

Report, and not only tends to exonerate Lee Oswald as the lone assassin, but

provides prima facie evidence of evidence-tampering and obstruction of justice.

It would later be claimed that there was a third spent cartridge that was found

at the same location at the same time, but official "evidence photographs" by

the Dallas Police Department and the FBI show only two spent and one unspent.

I recommend anyone who wants to appreciate what a genuine ballistics expert

can contribute to this case should read these articles by John Ritchson and then

compare them with what you are hearing from this "lone nutter", Mike Williams.

John,

It wasn't an ideological decision but rather a choice of professions. I never planned a career in the Marine Corps. I was enrolled in the

Navy Regular Program, for which the Navy paid for my tuition, books, and spending money for four years as an undergraduate and, in

return, I agreed to serve four years as a Naval or Marine Corps officer. I took the Marine Corps option. After reflecting on the choice

of a career in the law or in higher eduction, I chose the path to a Ph.D. and academia. I always knew there was nothing I could do as

well as I could philosophy. I had not signed up for a lifetime commitment and I neither abandoned my men or my country, which had,

as it turned out, taken a wrong turn. And I have never seen any performance as shabby as that of this "Mike Williams" on this thread.

My brother, Phil, who also graduated from Princeton, however, was a bona fide conscientious objector. He had decided he would leave

the country if he were forced to fight in a war in which he did not believe. Prior to his appearance before the draft board, he asked me

if I would write on his behalf. I was glad to and explained to the board that I was convinced this was an act of conscience on his part.

I have often thought about how it affected the members of the board to have a letter from an active duty regular Marine Corps officer--

as I recall, I was a Captain at the time--write on behalf of a conscientious objector. By a single vote, Phil received his CO exemption.

So he deserves your praise on principle rather than I. For me, I had fulfilled my obligation and had other goals to pursue, which I did.

Jim

But then what would you expect from one who ran off to the

University of Indiana, at a time when his Country, his men, needed his loyalty the most?

The man is simply revolting.

Jim gains my respect for refusing to serve in Vietnam.

Jim,

Is there a "Navy Irregular Program?"

So you chose your own self serving motivations over that of your men and your Country? Impressive.

O

Edited May 18, 2010 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Greg Parker]

Yes and yes, Mike, I agree.

Oswald had marine training. Civilians who can be superb shots and know how to correct a misshoot from a habitual rotation already stated as diffiocult brings in the question of whether within the already diminished window of opportunity that window of opportunity was in fact so minimal so as not to allow for sufficient error.

The "Oswald" seen at the Stevenson demonstration was doing "miltary type turns".

One or more DP witnesses to the 6th floor shooter described him as standing "port arms".

Since Oswald's alibi is demonstrably true, I believe the shooter was not Oswald, but was military trained.

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

Let me say that I appreciate your contributions to this thread far more than those coming from other sources. Suppose we thought that your \"medical manual\" were good as gold. It omits any category for \"medium velocity\"! How dumb is that? Moreover, given what it does say about the dividing line, it is consistent with its definitions to take \"medium velocity\" as from 2,000 to 2,500 fps. By that standard, which is more reasonable that the high/low categorical distinction, the Mannlicher-Carcano is still not \"high velocity\". I don\'t understand your defense of Humes, by the way. Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB, has proven that Humes was involved in body alteration (by performing a craniotomy, for example, which was observed by two witnesses) and was otherwise complicity in faking the autopsy report, including later shifting the location of the wound to the back of the head from the EOP to the cowlick. He had to be aware of the massive defect to the back of the head, which Tink\'s buddy, Gary Aguilar, documented in his contribution to MURDER IN DEAELY PLAZA, and which David W. Mantik exposed in his studies of the X-rays in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. This defect, as Horne explains, was crudely obfuscated by painting it over in black, which he discusses in Volume IV, where, as I have observe in HOAX, you can view the defect for yourself in frames 374 of the Zapruder film. So I like your posts, but you are wrong. And of course the reason it is an inappropriate source is that it is not a study of rifles and ammo. If you read it as I suggest in relation to \"medium velocity\", however, it would be roughly right.

Jim

Jim, in the matter of the high-velocity vs. medium velocity argument, I have yet to come across anything in the literature prior to the assassination that would suggest Humes believed the M/C to be a medium-velocity weapon.

While I defend Humes on a number of matters, including, in your opinion, this one, I can\'t rightly be considered a Humes defender. In part 2 of my video series I argue that he deliberately lied to the Warren Commission about the back wound. In part 3 I argue that he also lied to Dan Rather in a 1967 televised interview, albeit on behalf of the Justice Dept. These ARE smoking guns, IMO. You may want to check \'em out

As far as the medical evidence for a wound on the far back of the head...it's just not as convincing when you take a good look at it. On the slide below, I show where Dr. Mantik presumes the Harper fragment exploded from Kennedy\'s head. I also show where Dr. Mantik believes a white patch was added to the X-rays. Look at them closely. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME SPOT.

On the following slide, furthermore, I show where two of the supposedly credible witnesses propped up by Horne and Aguilar, Crenshaw and Bell, just aren't reliable. They were asked to mark the wound location on rear view and lateral view drawings. When they did so, however, they marked them in different locations, not just from each other, but from themselves!

Apologies to those hoping to find more on Judyth...

Edited May 18, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Kathleen Collins]

The "Oswald" seen at the Stevenson demonstration was doing "miltary type turns".

One or more DP witnesses to the 6th floor shooter described him as standing "port arms".

Since Oswald's alibi is demonstrably true, I believe the shooter was not Oswald, but was military trained.

When was "Oswald" at the Stevenson protest? What's the source for this? I never heard about that.

Also, since I'm posting I might as well say this thread about Judyth has been hijacked. This shouldn't have been allowed to go on. And truthfully, I hate ballistics. Let's get back to Judyth or else just end it.

Kathy C

[John Dolva]

Yes, thank you very much, Bernice.

Note his left arm elbow to right of left knee, the leg of which appears twisted towards us, his shoulder behind the pipes, the rifle way in front. Basically he's contorting to avoid the pipes. Add the boxes, the box rest, lower the window to where it should be.

Pretty snug.

Is that the proper set up for a sniper to take that particular shot?

(and for 8+ seconds not be on any photo, film)