Fetzer takes ballistics 101!

[Jack White]

Contemporaneous newspaper reports as well as mortician Paul Groody said that the

FBI took the fingerprints in the mortuary...NOT THE DPD. The mortuary was in Fort

Worth, out of the DPD jurisdiction.

Jack

Pat,

Thanks for this post. The purpose of "evidence photographs" is to photograph evidence.

It is extremely interesting to me that when simple, obvious proofs that Oswald was not

the "lone gunman"--such as the fact that the weapon only had a muzzle velocity of 2,000

fps and that only two spent shell casings and one unspent were found at the "assassin's

lair"--they launch a massive campaign against them, even appealing to highly distorted

definitions of "high velocity". Even Posner grants that the Mannlicher-Carcano had only

a 2,000 fps muzzle velocity and there have been plenty of weapons around that possess

much higher muzzle velocities, such as the M-1, the 30.30, the 30.06, and most others,

as the following table from http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_ballistics_table.htm shows:

A useful standard is the M-1, which Patton described as the "Greatest battle implement

ever devised". The M1 Garand was produced until 1957 and was the standard issue of

the US Army and Marines during WWII and the Korean War. The M1 Garand's reputation

for accuracy, reliability and durability was built on the use of only superior grade materials

and workmanship and the "self-contained" design which exposes very few moving parts

to the elements. It's basic characteristics are: Action: Gas semi-auto Weight 9 lbs 8 oz,

Length 43.6 in Muzzle Velocity: 2,750fps Max. range: 3,450 yds Max. Effective range

800-1,000 yds Magazine: 8 round, En Bloc, with its muzzle velocity of 2,750 fps. There

is no reasonable definition by which a 2,000 fps weapon would qualify as "high velocity".

Your points about some of the evidence--The photo of the two shells with the bullet was

taken on 11-26, not 11-22. Aside from a few photos of the rifle...NO evidence photos

were taken by the DPD on 11-22, or, if they were taken, were placed into the files. This

is quite strange. They took numerous photos of the sixth floor, and were fairly thorough.

They took a number of photos of the rifle, and of the fingerprints on the trigger guard.

But they somehow failed to photograph the paper bag, the corner of the box they'd found

that supposedly held Oswald's palm print, the palm print supposedly on the rifle barrel,

the piece of wood removed from the window, etc.--do not alter the ballistic evidence.

The evidence photographs published in Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON (1997) show

two spent casings and one unspent cartridge, where the photos are substantiated by a

exhibits (documents) on page 110 (an FBI agent's note of two hulls and one "live" round

were found), on page 112 (the original Oswald "evidence sheet" showing one "live" and

2 spent rounds were found), and on page 116 (a DPD report dated 11-22-63 stating two

spent hulls were found on the 6th floor). Noel also publishes photos of the scene, which

reveal a crude forgery to add a third shell casing and the changed "evidence sheet" in

which the numeral "2" has been changed to "3". Nor does Vaughan or Thompson address

the evidence photograph that appears in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE (1969).

I hope you have Noel's book, because he does a thorough job of documenting the point

that only two spent shell casings and one unspent "live" round were found. That another

spent casing would eventually "show up", of course, is par for the history of "evidence"

about the assassination, where the DPD and the FBI were doing what they could to make

their case against the alleged assassin, including creating a palm print on the weapon by

taking it to the funeral parlor and impressing his palm on the Mannlicher-Carcono, where

the funeral director complained about having to remove the ink from his hands afterward.

That these people would go so far as to cite from a notorious "lone-nutter" web site does

not overcome the weight of the evidence and only raises questions about their research.

Jim

Jim, since I suspect only two shots were fired from the sniper's nest, I've done a lot of reading and studying on the two shells/three shells issue. And the evidence strongly suggests there were three shells. Th earliest witnesses, such as Mooney, Fritz, and Alyea, claimed to see three shells. The photos taken by Day and Studebaker show three shells. Fritz claimed he held onto one of the shells for himself and did not forward it to D.C. (which only makes sense given he was supposed to be conducting an investigation.) That's why only two were written up, and two returned. The third shell was sent on later. The WC cleared this up (or helped put together a credible cover story) in 64.

(There are still some serious questions about the shells, however, which I hope to get into when I complete a still-brewing chapter for my website.)

As far as the fingerprints taken in the mortuary, the DPD acknowledges taking post-mortem fingerprints. Evidently, it's standard. The bit about taking the rifle to the mortuary, it seems, is nonsense.

As with the shells, however, there are still some problems. BIG ones. The palm print was never photographed on the weapon. The FBI failed to see it on the weapon. The WC--Liebeler to be specific--eventually asked "Well, uh, who's to say the palm print was ever on the weapon?' The FBI--Hoover, to be specific--responded by saying that the FBI had matched the imperfections on the rifle barrel to marks on the palm print lift, proving the lift came from the barrel. The FBI presented the WC with an exhibit showing this match.

Problem: the exhibit is entirely unclear and reveals no match.

Problem: the FBI's fingerprint expert--Latona--was not asked to testify to this match.

Problem: no one else in the FBI was asked to testify to this match.

Problem--the FBI's files on the case (from what I can tell), contains no crime lab report indicating the tests purportedly performed by Latona even took place.

In other words, it comes down to Hoover's word that the FBI found a match.

Problem: Hoover had told many untruths in his WC testimony. One of these untruths--where he claimed the FBI had no reason to suspect and flag Oswald as a possible threat, months after he'd secretly penalized 17 of his agents for failing to suspect and flag Oswald as a possible threat--can probably be considered perjury.

So, IMO, the question isn't if the palmprint was added later...it is if it was ever even there...

[Mike Williams]

SPECIAL REQUEST TO JOHN SIMKIN AND EVAN BURTON ABOUT HIJACKING THREADS

John and Evan,

Anyone who has followed this thread is aware that Josiah Thompson and Mike Williams have no

knowledge or interest in the subject of this thread but are here for the plain and simple reason

of wanting to attack, ridicule, and belittle me, regardless of the merits of their case. They have

hijacked this thread devoted to Judyth Vary Baker, which is both unprofessional but also easily

predicable for those with any familiarity with their character. This conduct on their part--which

I inadvertently encouraged by responding to one of Mike Williams' posts--not only undermines

the efforts of those who are seriously concerned with Judyth's credibility but sets a very poor

example for other threads where, if this kind of conduct is tolerated here, it may be expected

to occur on other threads at other times for other reasons. I therefore formally request that a

neutral party--Evan Burton would be fine!--review the past 100 posts or so and remove them

from this thread and add them to some other. I know that Williams and Thompson created a

thread, "Fetzer and Ballistics 101", for the obvious reasons. That might be a suitable location

for these posts, since they are assailing me, often in relation to questions of ballistics. I have

no problem with being attacked: it goes with the territory! But it is extremely unfair to me and

to Judyth and to everyone else, such as Jack White, Michael Hogan, Pamela Brown, David Lifton

Douglas Weldon, Stephen Roy, Pat Speer, Gregory Burnham, Dean Hagerman, Barb Junkkarinen,

and many others--to have the thread taken over by parties with no serious interest in its subject.

I therefore request in the interest of fair-play that irrelevant posts, including mine, be moved to

another location, where the parties are welcome to continue to assail me to their heart's content.

With appreciation,

Jim

Of course now that the Great Fetzer is looking like a real baboon, he cries that the thread has been hijacked, even thought he has been a willing participant to the conversation.

However one will note that I began a new thread two days ago for this very thing.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15944

Fetzer has not seen fit to reply there, as the cause he supports is hopeless. However it gives him cause to shed tears of foul here. Even after he has been a more than willing part of the conversation, and certainly in more than the one post he claims. Can this man not be honest about anything?

Professor who do you think you are fooling?

I ask again, why did you turn your back on your Country and your men, when they needed you most?

Edited May 21, 2010 by Mike Williams

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Another excellent reason for removing these irrelevant posts--to which I have already noted

I have inadvertently supported, where my irrelevant posts should be removed as well as those

of others, including, most conspicuously, Mike Williams and Tink Thompson--is that the content

relations are completely lost. Posts about "high velocity" and the actual evidence found at the

alleged assassin's lair, for example, are lost to the rest of the research commuity, when they

are buried in a thread that has nothing to do with them. The real reason for Mike Williams and

Tink Thompson being here has nothing to do with truth but with only with deceit and deception.

The reiteration of the absurd claim, "I abandoned my country and my men when they needed

me the most", is a nice illustration. I served my country honorably for four years of regular

active duty. I performed the duties to which I was assigned, like every other Marine. When I

left the corps, I was not in a command billet but was serving as a staff officer at Headquarters,

Recruit Training Regiment, USMC Recruit Depot, San Diego. I may have had an administrative

assistant at the time, but there is no reasonable sense in which I was abandoning my men or

abandoning my country. In fact, I remained in the Marine Corps Reserve for several years

thereafter and, had I been recalled to active duty, I would have served. Neither literally nor

figuratively was I abandoning my men or my country. It is symptomatic of the perverted, cheap

and tawdry character of this man that he would fabricate an issue of this kind about an officer

who honorably served his country. But, from what I have observed of him on this forum, that

is precisely the kind of conduct to be expected from him and his sick associate, Tink Thompson,

who seems to think he can restore his standing by attacking mine. I'm sorry, Josiah, but that is

not how it works. And everyone on this thread has seen through your shoddy tactics long ago.

SPECIAL REQUEST TO JOHN SIMKIN AND EVAN BURTON ABOUT HIJACKING THREADS

John and Evan,

Anyone who has followed this thread is aware that Josiah Thompson and Mike Williams have no

knowledge or interest in the subject of this thread but are here for the plain and simple reason

of wanting to attack, ridicule, and belittle me, regardless of the merits of their case. They have

hijacked this thread devoted to Judyth Vary Baker, which is both unprofessional but also easily

predicable for those with any familiarity with their character. This conduct on their part--which

I inadvertently encouraged by responding to one of Mike Williams' posts--not only undermines

the efforts of those who are seriously concerned with Judyth's credibility but sets a very poor

example for other threads where, if this kind of conduct is tolerated here, it may be expected

to occur on other threads at other times for other reasons. I therefore formally request that a

neutral party--Evan Burton would be fine!--review the past 100 posts or so and remove them

from this thread and add them to some other. I know that Williams and Thompson created a

thread, "Fetzer and Ballistics 101", for the obvious reasons. That might be a suitable location

for these posts, since they are assailing me, often in relation to questions of ballistics. I have

no problem with being attacked: it goes with the territory! But it is extremely unfair to me and

to Judyth and to everyone else, such as Jack White, Michael Hogan, Pamela Brown, David Lifton

Douglas Weldon, Stephen Roy, Pat Speer, Gregory Burnham, Dean Hagerman, Barb Junkkarinen,

and many others--to have the thread taken over by parties with no serious interest in its subject.

I therefore request in the interest of fair-play that irrelevant posts, including mine, be moved to

another location, where the parties are welcome to continue to assail me to their heart's content.

With appreciation,

Jim

Of course now that the Great Fetzer is looking like a real baboon, he cries that the thread has been hijacked, even thought he has been a willing participant to the conversation.

However one will note that I began a new thread two days ago for this very thing.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15944

Fetzer has not seen fit to reply there, as the cause he supports is hopeless. However it gives him cause to shed tears of foul here. Even after he has been a more than willing part of the conversation, and certainly in more than the one post he claims. Can this man not be honest about anything?

Professor who do you think you are fooling?

I ask again, why did you turn your back on your Country and your men, when they needed you most?

Edited May 21, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Contemporaneous newspaper reports as well as mortician Paul Groody said that the

FBI took the fingerprints in the mortuary...NOT THE DPD. The mortuary was in Fort

Worth, out of the DPD jurisdiction.

Jack

Paul Groody told me the same thing when I interviewed him before my appearance on "Infamous Gravesites" a documentary featuring the "Exhumation of Lee Harvey Oswald/The Norton Report".

Edited May 22, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Bernice Moore]

JOHN DOLVA AM TAKING THESE TO THE RIFLE THREAD..I'M GONE....WHATEVER...B

Edited May 21, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Josiah Thompson]

SPECIAL REQUEST TO JOHN SIMKIN AND EVAN BURTON ABOUT HIJACKING THREADS

John and Evan,

Anyone who has followed this thread is aware that Josiah Thompson and Mike Williams have no

knowledge or interest in the subject of this thread but are here for the plain and simple reason

of wanting to attack, ridicule, and belittle me, regardless of the merits of their case. They have

hijacked this thread devoted to Judyth Vary Baker, which is both unprofessional but also easily

predicable for those with any familiarity with their character. This conduct on their part--which

I inadvertently encouraged by responding to one of Mike Williams' posts--not only undermines

the efforts of those who are seriously concerned with Judyth's credibility but sets a very poor

example for other threads where, if this kind of conduct is tolerated here, it may be expected

to occur on other threads at other times for other reasons. I therefore formally request that a

neutral party--Evan Burton would be fine!--review the past 100 posts or so and remove them

from this thread and add them to some other. I know that Williams and Thompson created a

thread, "Fetzer and Ballistics 101", for the obvious reasons. That might be a suitable location

for these posts, since they are assailing me, often in relation to questions of ballistics. I have

no problem with being attacked: it goes with the territory! But it is extremely unfair to me and

to Judyth and to everyone else, such as Jack White, Michael Hogan, Pamela Brown, David Lifton

Douglas Weldon, Stephen Roy, Pat Speer, Gregory Burnham, Dean Hagerman, Barb Junkkarinen,

and many others--to have the thread taken over by parties with no serious interest in its subject.

I therefore request in the interest of fair-play that irrelevant posts, including mine, be moved to

another location, where the parties are welcome to continue to assail me to their heart's content.

With appreciation,

Jim

Fetzer defends his production of non-facts re Judyth by arguing with Mike Williams about Humes' statement about high-velocity weapons. Williams hands him his hat with regard to this argument. Fetzer next introduces a faux expert about velocities who also offers mistaken claims about how many cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor. Once again, Fetzer is handed his hat with regard to this claim. Instead of trying to defend his claims, Fetzer dissembles. He raises a phony procedural issue that he hopes will consume debate. And he does this by whining that his thread is being hijacked.

The point being discussed here is a serious one. David Lifton and I spent a lot of time talking about it yesterday. What happens if the basic field of evidence is contaminated with great quantities of false evidence? What happens is that the infusion of false evidence overwhelms the field. It no longer becomes possible to really discuss anything.

So under all the angry words and dissembling there is a serious issue. If you keep throwing phony evidence into the plane of discussion, you are hurting all of us in our pursuit of this case. All this material about Fetzer and Twyman's claims was hashed out years ago. Fetzer cannot help but know the truth concerning these facts. Yet he persists. He says the very receipt used when the FBI picked up two cases and one live round from the Dallas police on Friday evening the 22nd is proof that only two cases were found on the 6th floor. He cannot dodge around the fact that he's known this for years. Yet he keeps pushing the receipt as evidence of what it cannot be evidence for. Then, when it is pointed out for all to see, does he admit it? Of course not. He tries to change the discussion to a procedural issue.

What we've seen from Fetzer on this thread is precisely the phenomenon Lifton and I talked about. While defending the whole suspect Judyth tale, Fetzer introduces a purported "expert" who spews out an additional quantity of non-evidence. When this is exposed, Fetzer cannot argue with it. Instead, he whines. "Those nasty people are taking over my thread!" The truth is that Fetzer is losing not just this thread but general respect through these tactics. He is illustrating a really pernicious trend where suspect evidence is defended by claims of even greater suspect evidence. The importance of holding Fetzer's feet to the fire is that this trend can be exposed and discouraged in the future. This whole thread never was about Judyth; it always has been about Fetzer. Sadly, we are seeing clearly and irreparably just who he is.

Josiah Thompson

Edited May 21, 2010 by Josiah Thompson

[Cliff Varnell]

As to your belief in a single shooter, you've undermined that determination

with your acknowledgment of "evidence of a short shot."

A "short shot" demolishes the 3-shot scenario, since a "short shot" could not

have possibly caused 5 wounds in two men, as per the SBT.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Evan Burton

[Mike Williams]

I think it can be fairly argued that the Judyth Vary Baker saga has no relevance to

the John F. Kennedy assassination and all threads on the subject should be moved to

"another location".

Cliff,

That was in a word BRILLIANT!

I knew there was something I liked about you LOL. Good stuff!

(I guess now I have to retract the Queen comment) I only said it to get your goat. Dont be so think skinned.

Its obvious you are passionate about the subject matter, as am I, and frankly that deserves respect.

Should you ever have the desire to write something for my website, I would love to have it. I accept articles from both sides, and try to be as objective as I can in allowing all matters to be written about.

After all, just because I believe it was a single shooter, does NOT mean I am any where near convinced there was no conspiracy.

My best to you buddy,

Mike

Mike, I brought up your "QUEEN" crack in the context of "why we get along so poorly,"

a subject you raised, not I.

Aren't those kinds of insults best left to grade school playgrounds?

For myself, if I want to "get your goat" I prefer to find logical inconsistencies in your

argument and grind you with the facts, to wit:

As to your belief in a single shooter, you've undermined that determination

with your acknowledgment of "evidence of a short shot."

A "short shot" demolishes the 3-shot scenario, since a "short shot" could not

have possibly caused 5 wounds in two men, as per the SBT.

Cliff,

A short round does not at all dissolve the 3 shot scenario.

Shot 1 hits JFK shallow to the back

Shot 2 hits JBC causing his wounds

Shot 3 hits JFK in the head, strikes the chrome, shatters and sends a fragment to wound Tague.

3 up, 3 down and no magic.

However I would also say that I have given the SBT a much closer look as of late. Once one realizes that the impact angle to JFK and the Impact angle to JBC only have 2 degrees of difference, one must reconsider the alignment of that shot.

I am not sure what you mean by "logical inconsistencies" in my argument. The ballistics in this case support my position very well. Right down to the dented cartridge casing, which both explains the difference in sound of the first shot from the rest, but also the delay between the first and second shot.

There is far more about this, but that should be for another time.

I apologize for the queen comment, I have no control over your acceptance of that apology.

Mike

Edited May 21, 2010 by Mike Williams

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

You and Pat seem to underestimate how much is known about the head wounds. Mantik's studies of the X-rays shows the area

at the back of the head that was "patched" to conceal the blow-out at the back of the head. You can see the actual blow-out in

frame 374 of the Zapruder film, which corresponds almost exactly to Mantik's "Area P". Drs. McClelland and Crenshaw both drew

diagrams of the wound they personally observed. Beverly Oliver and Audrey Rike appeared with me on the JFK segment of "Jesse

Ventura's America" on msnbc, where Beverly described observing the blow-out of brains and debris to the left-rear, where Officer

Hargis was hit so hard that he thought he himself had been shot; and Audrey explained how he felt the ragged edges of the blow-

out to the back of the head when he helped lift the body into the casket. The Harper fragment would found on the grass to the

left of the limo the next day. Erwin Swartz, Abe Zapruder's associate, described seeing the brains and debris blown out to the left-

rear in the film (before it was recreated). During a television interview, Crenshaw described an entry wound to the right temple,

which was one of the two wounds widely reported over radio and television the afternoon and evening of the assassination. On

that occasion, the description of the wound was attributed to Admiral George Burkley, who was JFK's personal physician. Gary

Aguilar has an excellent study of the continuity in the description of the wound to the back of the head in MURDER IN DEALEY

PLAZA. Mantik has discussed the beveling to a bone at the back of the head in his chapters in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and

MURDER. Frame 374 and Swartz's testimony are presented and discussed in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. I wonder if

you are familiar with some of the most important work on the wounds, which are found in those books. Plus, of course, simply

determining where the bullet hit JFK's back is sufficient to disprove the "magic bullet" theory and establish that there have to

have been at least six shots from at least three directions. Check out "Reasoning about Assassinations", which you can google,

if you haven't read it before. You mention that the throat wound was higher than the back wound, which is true, but there is a

great deal more relevant evidence to disproving the "magic bullet" and establishing the existence of a conspiracy. It puzzles me

why you think that the evidence about the head wounds is such a morass, because these studies show that that is not the case.

Jim

It follows then that, to be credible, conspiracy theorists need to admit that Mantik's white spot did not disguise an occipital blow-out involving the Harper fragment, and that Crenshaw and Bell are unreliable. But how many will admit this? Almost none.

To be credible (imho) conspiracy theorists need to admit that all the head wound

evidence is hopelessly conflicted, tainted, and otherwise compromised -- and that any

prolonged study of the subject is inherently obfuscationary.

But how many will admit this? None. Too many people have too much time invested

in the head wound research to let it go.

IMO, this is a BIG problem, and suggests that the widespread CT belief there was a large hole in the occipital area, is a CT myth, much as the SBT is a single-assassin theorist myth. People believe it simply because they want to believe it.

IMO, the biggest problem in the CT "community" are those critics who fail to recognize

the prima facie evidence of conspiracy -- the T3 back wound, the throat entrance wound.

People believe in the "high back wound" simply because they have to in order

for their work to be considered "important."

A major pity.

[Mike Williams]

Cliff,

You and Pat seem to underestimate how much is known about the head wounds. Mantik's studies of the X-rays shows the area

at the back of the head that was "patched" to conceal the blow-out at the back of the head. You can see the actual blow-out in

frame 374 of the Zapruder film, which corresponds almost exactly to Mantik's "Area P". Drs. McClelland and Crenshaw both drew

diagrams of the wound they personally observed. Beverly Oliver and Audrey Rike appeared with me on the JFK segment of "Jesse

Ventura's America" on msnbc, where Beverly described observing the blow-out of brains and debris to the left-rear, where Officer

Hargis was hit so hard that he thought he himself had been shot; and Audrey explained how he felt the ragged edges of the blow-

out to the back of the head when he helped lift the body into the casket. The Harper fragment would found on the grass to the

left of the limo the next day. Erwin Swartz, Abe Zapruder's associate, described seeing the brains and debris blown out to the left-

rear in the film (before it was recreated). During a television interview, Crenshaw described an entry wound to the right temple,

which was one of the two wounds widely reported over radio and television the afternoon and evening of the assassination. On

that occasion, the description of the wound was attributed to Admiral George Burkley, who was JFK's personal physician. Gary

Aguilar has an excellent study of the continuity in the description of the wound to the back of the head in MURDER IN DEALEY

PLAZA. Mantik has discussed the beveling to a bone at the back of the head in his chapters in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and

MURDER. Frame 374 and Swartz's testimony are presented and discussed in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. I wonder if

you are familiar with some of the most important work on the wounds, which are found in those books. Plus, of course, simply

determining where the bullet hit JFK's back is sufficient to disprove the "magic bullet" theory and establish that there have to

have been at least six shots from at least three directions. Check out "Reasoning about Assassinations", which you can google,

if you haven't read it before. You mention that the throat wound was higher than the back wound, which is true, but there is a

great deal more relevant evidence to disproving the "magic bullet" and establishing the existence of a conspiracy. It puzzles me

why you think that the evidence about the head wounds is such a morass, because these studies show that that is not the case.

Jim

It follows then that, to be credible, conspiracy theorists need to admit that Mantik's white spot did not disguise an occipital blow-out involving the Harper fragment, and that Crenshaw and Bell are unreliable. But how many will admit this? Almost none.

To be credible (imho) conspiracy theorists need to admit that all the head wound

evidence is hopelessly conflicted, tainted, and otherwise compromised -- and that any

prolonged study of the subject is inherently obfuscationary.

But how many will admit this? None. Too many people have too much time invested

in the head wound research to let it go.

IMO, this is a BIG problem, and suggests that the widespread CT belief there was a large hole in the occipital area, is a CT myth, much as the SBT is a single-assassin theorist myth. People believe it simply because they want to believe it.

IMO, the biggest problem in the CT "community" are those critics who fail to recognize

the prima facie evidence of conspiracy -- the T3 back wound, the throat entrance wound.

People believe in the "high back wound" simply because they have to in order

for their work to be considered "important."

A major pity.

Of course, if you cant explain it and make if fit your theory, simply call it faked and let the conjecture parade begin.

What amazes me the most about 47 years of research, and there seems to be multitudes of people that have no idea what an entry wound could look like.

There is no evidence what so ever of a shot from the front.

<removed by E Burton - Do not refer to the research abilities of other members>

I extend to you an open offer to debate the ballistics in this case any time you wish.

I have a feeling you will not accept the offer, I assure you the outcome would make you look as ridiculous as you did on the O'Reilly show.

Mike

[Dean Hagerman]

Shot 1 hits JFK shallow to the back

Shot 2 hits JBC causing his wounds

Shot 3 hits JFK in the head, strikes the chrome, shatters and sends a fragment to wound Tague.

3 up, 3 down and no magic.

So did your shot # 1 exit JFKs throat Mike?

If not how do you explain the wound in the front of JFK throat?

[Greg Burnham]

Of course, if you cant explain it and make if fit your theory, simply call it faked and let the conjecture parade begin. What amazes me the most about 47 years of research, and there seems to be multitudes of people that have no idea what an entry wound could look like.

There is no evidence what so ever of a shot from the front.

I have to ask Jim, do you do ANY research of your own, or is all your work just based on the parroting of others?

I extend to you an open offer to debate the ballistics in this case any time you wish.

I have a feeling you will not accept the offer, I assure you the outcome would make you look as ridiculous as you did on the O'Reilly show.

Mike

Perhaps Jim will invite both of us on his radio show to debate...each other. However, the topic will need to be expanded beyond mere ballistics, which is only one aspect of this case. Are you up to it?

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

A short round does not at all dissolve the 3 shot scenario.

Shot 1 hits JFK shallow to the back

Shot 2 hits JBC causing his wounds

Shot 3 hits JFK in the head, strikes the chrome, shatters and sends a fragment to wound Tague.

Mike, you have two problems with this analysis:

1) It ignores the throat wound, which the Parkland staff described as a wound of entrance,

and which the Zapruder film shows having occurred well before the head shots(s). The

statements of close-proximity witnesses Nellie Connally, Jackie Kennedy, Linda Willis,

Roy Kellerman, and Clint Hill corroborate what we see in the Zapruder film: JFK was reacting

to the throat shot well before the head shot.

2) The Muchmore film shows a stiff wind from the southwest billowing

in the coats of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman.

At the time of the head shot the concrete curb damaged by the Tague shot was

85 yards southwest of the limo.

The wind in Dealey Plaza was swirling at 12:30pm on 11/22/63. At the corner

of Houston and Elm DP officer Marrion Baker was almost knocked over by a wind gust

from the north. On Houston St. Jackie's pink pill box hat was almost blown off by

a wind gust from the north.

How could a bullet fragment travel 85 yards into the teeth of a hard swirling wind

on a straight-line trajectory and retain enough impact velocity to shatter concrete and

wound a man standing 16 feet away?

3 up, 3 down and no magic.

However I would also say that I have given the SBT a much closer look as of late. Once one realizes that the impact angle to JFK and the Impact angle to JBC only have 2 degrees of difference, one must reconsider the alignment of that shot.

Not given JFK's T3 back wound. The holes in JFK's clothes are 4 inches below

the bottom of his clothing collars -- well below the location required for the SBT.

I am not sure what you mean by "logical inconsistencies" in my argument. The ballistics in this case support my position very well. Right down to the dented cartridge casing, which both explains the difference in sound of the first shot from the rest, but also the delay between the first and second shot.

There is far more about this, but that should be for another time.

The physical facts of the case debunk your argument. Not only are the holes in

the clothes too low, but 15 people described the wound in the vicinity of T3 and

two pieces of properly prepared contemporaneous medical evidence put the

wound in the vicinity of T3.

I propose to you that there was absolutely no way a 3 gram (approximate) fragment

could travel on a straight-line trajectory 85 yards into the teeth of a hard, swirling

wind -- much less retain enough impact velocity to do the damage we see with the

Tague wounding.

I apologize for the queen comment, I have no control over your acceptance of that apology.

I accept.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

[snip]

I certainly am glad that Mr. Freeman did not chose to abandon his men and his Country and run off to the University of Indiana.

God Bless and Keep him.

Great story, Mike. Freeman was indeed a hero--without question. Were you one of those he rescued? If not, is there a specific reason that this story is significant for you? I'd like to hear your story, if you want to share. Were you in combat? Wounded? Deployed and in the line of fire, etc.? If you can't say, I understand...

I'm confused as to the relevance of your reference to the University of Indiana. It is a cheap shot that has no bearing on anything. If you are confident in your criticisms of Jim Fetzer's arguments perhaps it would be appropriate to remain focused there else your own credibility might suffer. But, that's just my opinion. Feel free to disregard it.

Greg,

You are correct, it was a cheap shot, however it is accurate.

Advise taken, I should consider how I look when posting such things.

Truth is, I had an Uncle and a Close Friend that were involved in the Ia Drang Valley fight. They were both removed by chopper after being seriously wounded. I have no idea if it was Freemans' bird or not. I do know that it was not a medivac bird. It was far after they were called off. I would also say that there were several birds coming and going with Freeman, so I can not say it was his specific bird. What we do know is that he was the driving force of those birds going in.

As for my own experience. I have difficulty there. I like to share the funny stories, the occasional oddity, and at times something that might be ballistically relevant. Other than that I do not really see the point. If it does not provide a fact, explain a situation, or bring laughter, it is hardly worth the effort. I will tell you that yes, I have been in combat, on multiple occasions. I was wounded. I was given awards (meaningless really, a ribbon and $5 will get you starbucks coffee).

I would tell you that I absolutely deplore violence now. I see no winner in war. War is an evil, and often unjustifiable, entity.

So why did I stay?

This is tough for me Greg. I stayed, because I was good at it. Because my one hope was that by teaching others, they might return home intact. I did not and do not believe in the war in Iraq. However, I did my part, simply because by teaching them the right way, their chances of survival go up. Like I said in an earlier post, its about the men, boys in most cases.

I hope you can see where I am coming from here.

Oh yes, no I was not one that Freeman rescued. I was in diapers then!

Mike

Mike, I agree with Greg that you only make yourself look bad by attacking Fetzer for leaving when his time was up. If you want to go after anyone for cowardice re Vietnam, IMO, it should be the chicken hawks like Dick Cheney, who weaseled their way out of the war, and then later sent young men into harm's way to support the interests of their corporate backers.

P.S. If you're gonna tout heroic helicopter pilots, then you should also mention Hugh Thompson, IMO. When he saw what was happening at My Lai, he flew in, loaded up a helicopter with villagers, and flew them to safety. He then reported the crime to his superiors. According to the PBS program on My Lai that aired last night, his superiors not only failed to act, they ordered him into more and more perilous duty, flying solo, in hopes he would get killed, so that the story could go away. No such luck.

[Mike Williams]

[snip]

I certainly am glad that Mr. Freeman did not chose to abandon his men and his Country and run off to the University of Indiana.

God Bless and Keep him.

Great story, Mike. Freeman was indeed a hero--without question. Were you one of those he rescued? If not, is there a specific reason that this story is significant for you? I'd like to hear your story, if you want to share. Were you in combat? Wounded? Deployed and in the line of fire, etc.? If you can't say, I understand...

I'm confused as to the relevance of your reference to the University of Indiana. It is a cheap shot that has no bearing on anything. If you are confident in your criticisms of Jim Fetzer's arguments perhaps it would be appropriate to remain focused there else your own credibility might suffer. But, that's just my opinion. Feel free to disregard it.

Greg,

You are correct, it was a cheap shot, however it is accurate.

Advise taken, I should consider how I look when posting such things.

Truth is, I had an Uncle and a Close Friend that were involved in the Ia Drang Valley fight. They were both removed by chopper after being seriously wounded. I have no idea if it was Freemans' bird or not. I do know that it was not a medivac bird. It was far after they were called off. I would also say that there were several birds coming and going with Freeman, so I can not say it was his specific bird. What we do know is that he was the driving force of those birds going in.

As for my own experience. I have difficulty there. I like to share the funny stories, the occasional oddity, and at times something that might be ballistically relevant. Other than that I do not really see the point. If it does not provide a fact, explain a situation, or bring laughter, it is hardly worth the effort. I will tell you that yes, I have been in combat, on multiple occasions. I was wounded. I was given awards (meaningless really, a ribbon and $5 will get you starbucks coffee).

I would tell you that I absolutely deplore violence now. I see no winner in war. War is an evil, and often unjustifiable, entity.

So why did I stay?

This is tough for me Greg. I stayed, because I was good at it. Because my one hope was that by teaching others, they might return home intact. I did not and do not believe in the war in Iraq. However, I did my part, simply because by teaching them the right way, their chances of survival go up. Like I said in an earlier post, its about the men, boys in most cases.

I hope you can see where I am coming from here.

Oh yes, no I was not one that Freeman rescued. I was in diapers then!

Mike

Mike, I agree with Greg that you only make yourself look bad by attacking Fetzer for leaving when his time was up. If you want to go after anyone for cowardice re Vietnam, IMO, it should be the chicken hawks like Dick Cheney, who weaseled their way out of the war, and then later sent young men into harm's way to support the interests of their corporate backers.

P.S. If you're gonna tout heroic helicopter pilots, then you should also mention Hugh Thompson, IMO. When he saw what was happening at My Lai, he flew in, loaded up a helicopter with villagers, and flew them to safety. He then reported the crime to his superiors. According to the PBS program on My Lai that aired last night, his superiors not only failed to act, they ordered him into more and more perilous duty, flying solo, in hopes he would get killed, so that the story could go away. No such luck.

Pat,

I only mentioned Freeman as I received notice of his passing. Of course Thompson would walk the same ground. What a heroic thing to have done, and for villagers! It just goes to show you the feats of bravery were unending.

As for Fetzer, If one looks closely, I am not questioning his courage. Hell Pat he has the courage to take verbal beatings at every turn, look at the O'Reilly show as just one example. What I question is his judgment, it lends towards credibility, the same exact thing he questions about me. I do notice however that in excising my offending statements, the ones Fetzer made calling me a fake and other things, remain.

How universally fair.

Mike