Fetzer takes ballistics 101!

[Greg Burnham]

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)

Great observations, John! And, as to your question, IMO, the answer is unequivocally: NO!!!

[Bernice Moore]

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...

but Pat, i know we agreed to disagree some long time ago, it seems each and every, but just wanted to post these comments for you, couldn't not as usual... Of course, they marked the skull wound in different places! If they all put it in the same place with the passage of these years, all it would prove would be that perhaps they had recently consulted with each other and decided where to place the mark. The point is they put it at the right rear of the head, not on the top as shown in the photographs.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[John Dolva]

I agree. It's so obvious. Look at the shadow his left cheek casts on the second pipe. This is where he has to hold his head sighting through the whatever sight he was using. I find it hard to go from there to the recorded PC exhibits and not have to tangle with the pipes. It's a very enveloping space where it seems to me achieving a workable possition is a position with not much leeway at all.

[Mike Williams]

I agree. It's so obvious. Look at the shadow his left cheek casts on the second pipe. This is where he has to hold his head sighting through the whatever sight he was using. I find it hard to go from there to the recorded PC exhibits and not have to tangle with the pipes. It's a very enveloping space where it seems to me achieving a workable possition is a position with not much leeway at all.

Look how much room he still has to his right.

I dont know that I would use this as a guide.

Mike

[John Dolva]

Wathis name had to sidle into it. He was a bit fat though. An actual scaling shows a max space of about the width of Oswalds shoulders. Did he shoot right eyed or left eyed?

edit:typo

Edited May 19, 2010 by John Dolva

[Pat Speer]

but Pat, i know we agreed to disagree some long time ago, it seems each and every, but just wanted to post these comments for you, couldn't not as usual... Of course, they marked the skull wound in different places! If they all put it in the same place with the passage of these years, all it would prove would be that perhaps they had recently consulted with each other and decided where to place the mark. The point is they put it at the right rear of the head, not on the top as shown in the photographs.

Bernice, there are a couple of problems with Crenshaw and Bell. One is that they never described the wound until many years after the shooting. Two is that they placed the rear wound almost entirely on the occipital bone, something proposed by none of the earliest witnesses. Even McClelland claimed the wound was on the back half of the parietal bone, inches away from where Crenshaw and Bell placed the wound. Three is that the wound location they marked on the rear view did not match the location marked on the lateral view. OOPS. That shoots down any argument they were trained witnesses and experts in anatomy.

In short, while many WANT TO BELIEVE the eyewitnesses, along with the Harper fragment's being described as occipital, along with Mantik's white spot, suggest there was an occipital blow-out, a detailed study of what the witnesses actually said, and where they actually located the wound, suggests the exact opposite. The wound location described by most back of the head witnesses was inches away from the wound described by Crenshaw and Bell, and far too high on the back of the head for there to have been an occipital blow-out involving the Harper fragment. Mantik's white spot, furthermore, was on the side of the head, inches away from where he claimed the Harper fragment had exploded, and much larger and higher up than the wound described by Crenshaw and Bell.

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.

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.

[John Dolva]

wasn't it posterior pareital and anterior occipital? The blow out I mean?

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Bernice Moore]

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)

Great observations, John! And, as to your question, IMO, the answer is unequivocally: NO!!!

YOUR WELCOME JOHN..THANKS FOR THE OBSERVATIONS, ESPECIALLY IN THE AREA OF THAT PIPE...I DELETED THE OTHER PHOTO, SO AS TO POST IT HERE UNDER YOUR COMMENTS SO OTHERS CAN RELATE...B PLEASE EXCUSE CAPS THXS

Edited May 21, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Jack White]

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)

Great observations, John! And, as to your question, IMO, the answer is unequivocally: NO!!!

YOUR WELCOME JOHN..THANKS FOR THE OBSERVATIONS, ESPECIALLY IN THE AREA OF THAT PIPE...I DELETED THE OTHER PHOTO, SO AS TO POST IT HERE UNDER YOUR COMMENTS SO OTHERS CAN RELATE...B PLEASE EXCUSE CAPS THXS

This photo was purposely printed in such a way to make it look like the gunman HAD PLENTY OF ROOM

in the corner. Attached is how it should really look, and where the corner is in the photo. I have simply

darkened the east wall. A person could not do this behind the shield of cartons.

Jack

[Mike Williams]

You're a 19 year old kid. 

 

You're critically wounded and dying in 

the  jungle somewhere in the Central Highlands  of Viet Nam . 

It's  November 11, 1967.  LZ (landing zone) X-ray.

 

Your unit is  outnumbered 8-1 and the enemy fire is so  intense, from 100 yards away, that  your CO (commanding officer) has  ordered the MedEvac helicopters to stop coming  in. 

 

You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns  and you know you're not getting out. 

 

Your family is half way around the world, 12,000  miles away, and you'll never see them again. 

 

As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day.

Then - over the machine gun noise - you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter. 

 

You look  up to see a Huey coming in. But ... It doesn't  seem real because no MedEvac markings are on it. 

 

Captain Ed Freeman is coming in for you. 

 

He's not MedEvac so it's not his job, but he heard the radio call and decided he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire anyway.

 Even after the MedEvacs were ordered not to come. He's coming anyway.

And he drops it in and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 3 of you at a time on board. 

 

Then he  flies you up and out through the gunfire to the doctors and nurses and safety. 

 

And, he kept coming back!! 13 more  times!! 

Until all  the wounded were out. No one knew until the  mission was over that the Captain had been hit 4 times in the legs 

and left arm.

He took 29 of you and your buddies out that day. Some would not have made it without the Captain and his Huey.

Medal  of Honor Recipient, Captain  Ed Freeman, United States Air Force, 

died last Wednesday at the age of 70, in Boise, Idaho .. 

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.

[Greg Burnham]

[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.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[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

Edited May 20, 2010 by Mike Williams

[Jack White]

Been there, done that.

Jack

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)

Great observations, John! And, as to your question, IMO, the answer is unequivocally: NO!!!

YOUR WELCOME JOHN..THANKS FOR THE OBSERVATIONS, ESPECIALLY IN THE AREA OF THAT PIPE...I DELETED THE OTHER PHOTO, SO AS TO POST IT HERE UNDER YOUR COMMENTS SO OTHERS CAN RELATE...B PLEASE EXCUSE CAPS THXS

This photo was purposely printed in such a way to make it look like the gunman HAD PLENTY OF ROOM

in the corner. Attached is how it should really look, and where the corner is in the photo. I have simply

darkened the east wall. A person could not do this behind the shield of cartons.

Jack

[Josiah Thompson]

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.

This afternoon David Lifton and I got together in Berkeley and talked for several hours. It was very nice, very informative. One of the issues we talked about was the growing contamination of the evidence field. This is perhaps a too complex way of saying that what is taken for evidence in this case is being cheapened by the introduction of things that are demonstrably untrue.

This whole thread on the Judyth phenomenon is one example of this. It becomes pretty funny when Professor Fetzer pauses for a moment while browbeating us concerning Judyth and his own allegedly high IQ, to tangle with Mike Williams about a simple matter concerning terminology. Fetzer claims that when Dr. Humes speaks of a “high velocity” weapon he cannot be describing Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano. This language quibble has been part of Fetzer’s claims for years. Unfortunately, it fails. Hence, in defending the factoids of Judyth, Fetzer offers another factoid that can be easily refuted. But it doesn’t stop there. In order to buttress his claim about Dr. Humes’ statement, Fetzer invokes the theory of some guy he anoints with the title of “expert,” John Richson. In the above quote posted by Fetzer, Richson claims that the cartridge cases found on the 6th floor of the Depository were stamped “Western” and “6.5 mm” on the cartridge base. According to Richson, this means that the rounds were “pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft round-nosed semi-jacketed bullets.” This means, says Richson, that none of these rounds could have been fired in a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. He also claims that two, not three, cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor, that “official evidence photographs by the Dallas Police Department and the FBI show only two spent and one unspent.”

It was only driving back from Berkeley that I remembered this little excursion by Professor Fetzer as a glowing example of just what David Lifton and I had been talking about.... an amazing example of strewing around an ever expanding circle of non-facts. First, of course, is the ever expanding tale of Judyth and Lee’s love affair. But then Fetzer introduces the silly claim about Humes’s statement to belabor Mike Williams who challenged his Judyth infatuation. Then to buttress part of his belaboring of Williams he introduces these claims from his “expert,” Richson. Here the blizzard of misinformation becomes blinding. First, as Todd Vaughan (post #2794 this thread) has already posted, the term “Western” doesn’t appear on the base of the casings found on the 6th floor. What does appear is “WCC” — the correct marking for a 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge. And the claim that two not three cartridge cases were found up there? Sorry, numerous witnesses both law enforcement and private stated that they saw three cartridge cases and DPD photos show three cartridge cases near the sniper’s nest. And what about those “official evidence photographs” that “show only two spent and one unspent” rounds? The photos referred to were taken at DPD on Friday night of the evidence items they released that night to the FBI. There were only two casings and the live round because DPD held back one casing and only released two cases and one live round to the FBI that night; the photos (as to be expected) show what was turned over to the FBI, not what was found). This whole claim was made by Noel Twyman years ago and taken apart as soon as his book appeared. So now, Fetzer brings it all back, and inserts it into a completely irrelevant thread. So we have a batch of non-facts (the obvious nonsense about the cartridge cases) used to buttress Fetzer’s nonsense about Humes’s statement that in turn is used to buttress the wholesale nonsense about Oswald’s supposed love affair with Judyth.

In a few short pages, Fetzer managed a trifecta of precisely the pernicious effect David Lifton and I were bemoaning. Congratulations Professor, you’re a champion!

Josiah Thompson