Clint Hill - First shot hit the president

[Robert Harris]

I proved your kooky claim that it was forged is quiet a joke.

Now run along Robert, as Bill and I are about to begin to investigate the fragments further, and don't have time for any more of your acute observations.

oh...and the limo was blue......how did you not know that?

Perhaps you didn't understand the question Michael. I did not ask you to blurt out another unsupported assertion. Just tell us how you proved that this document was not forged. That should be a simple enough request, even for you.

And please tell us where in the Muchmore film, you saw JFK react as he did in the Towner film.

The article speaks for itself Robert, you are ....yet again...made to look like a fool.

And how do you explain the obvious erasures and alteration on that envelope?? Do you intend to keep looking for copies of the photo that are washed out enough that we can't see them??

Washed out?

Funny stuff Robert....Your degraded photo is so much more clear!

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Damn!! You got me on that one, Michael. All those nasty erasures and alterations surely are gone!!

I think it must have been God who removed them for you, eh Michael??

So, now that you admit that you have zero support to validate ce-842, will you please tell us why you made up that BS about the Muchmore film?

Robert,

This is going to get very funny, if you are contending that the photo you have and the one I have are of two different envelopes.....You are not really saying that are you?

Where did I say anything about not having anything to validate CE842?

Here is a clue there mensa man, there never were any erasures alterations, and you knew this, as you were the one who sent me to the Hunt article!

How funny.

Your lower than Fetzer lol.

Michael, you cannot be this stupid. Of course, the photos are of the same envelope. But any idiot (except one) can see that the contrast was set differently in one than the other.

Are you actually claiming that because you found a photo which has washed out some of the partial erasures, that they never existed?? Are you suggesting that I, or other conspiracy people fabricated those characters, Michael? If not, then where did they come from??

And even in your your well scrubbed photo, there are clearly character segments under the initials that were supposed to be Fritz's. How do you explain those, Michael?

And please answer my original question about how you proved this envelope was legitimate. So far you have only fed us a lot of unsupported claims that you can prove to save your life.

And why do you continue to dodge your claim about the Muchmore film? Are you going to tell us why you made that crap up too?

[Mike Williams]

Im not sure what you mean by washed out? Surely it does not look anywhere near as degraded as the one you posted.

Furthermore Bob any idiot knows (save one apparently) that under the negative image the erasures would stand out. Look at the examples I posted.

There is no forgery or loss of integrity on CE842 envelope.

Denial is your cover Bob, but the rest of us see clearly there is no forgery.

washed out...yeah...right LMAO.....

And how exactly does one "scrub" away signs of forgery?

Obviously desperate Bob.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Mike Williams

[Robert Harris]

Im not sure what you mean by washed out? Surely it does not look anywhere near as degraded as the one you posted.

Furthermore Bob any idiot knows (save one apparently) that under the negative image the erasures would stand out. Look at the examples I posted.

There is no forgery or loss of integrity on CE842 envelope.

Denial is your cover Bob, but the rest of us see clearly there is no forgery.

washed out...yeah...right LMAO.....

And how exactly does one "scrub" away signs of forgery?

Obviously desperate Bob.

Yes, you certainly are. And changing the color of your little picture doesn't change anything. This is the envelope at issue,

You obviously posted your photo, not because it reveals information but because it hides it.

And why are you dodging my questions, Michael? Are they too difficult for you?

Are you actually claiming that because you found a photo which has washed out some of the partial erasures, that they never existed?? Are you suggesting that I, or other conspiracy people fabricated those characters, Michael? If not, then where did they come from??

And even in your your well scrubbed photo, there are clearly character segments under the initials that were supposed to be Fritz's. How do you explain those, Michael?

And please answer my original question about how you proved this envelope was legitimate. So far you have only fed us a lot of unsupported claims that you can prove to save your life.

And why do you continue to dodge your claim about the Muchmore film? Are you going to tell us why you made that crap up too?

[Mike Williams]

Im not sure what you mean by washed out? Surely it does not look anywhere near as degraded as the one you posted.

Furthermore Bob any idiot knows (save one apparently) that under the negative image the erasures would stand out. Look at the examples I posted.

There is no forgery or loss of integrity on CE842 envelope.

Denial is your cover Bob, but the rest of us see clearly there is no forgery.

washed out...yeah...right LMAO.....

And how exactly does one "scrub" away signs of forgery?

Obviously desperate Bob.

Yes, you certainly are. And changing the color of your little picture doesn't change anything. This is the envelope at issue,

You obviously posted your photo, not because it reveals information but because it hides it.

And why are you dodging my questions, Michael? Are they too difficult for you?

Are you actually claiming that because you found a photo which has washed out some of the partial erasures, that they never existed?? Are you suggesting that I, or other conspiracy people fabricated those characters, Michael? If not, then where did they come from??

And even in your your well scrubbed photo, there are clearly character segments under the initials that were supposed to be Fritz's. How do you explain those, Michael?

And please answer my original question about how you proved this envelope was legitimate. So far you have only fed us a lot of unsupported claims that you can prove to save your life.

And why do you continue to dodge your claim about the Muchmore film? Are you going to tell us why you made that crap up too?

Robert,

How exactly did I "change the color" on anything? And again, how is the envelope I posted, from Hunts excellent scan washed out? It is certainly a superior copy to the one you posed as claims of forgery. I wonder why you did not use the best evidence when you clearly knew it existed.

If you are still contending that there was an erasure made, then how did they manage to do it without damageing the paper, as clearly seen in my sample envelope? I might also add that it does not take a rocket scientist to notice that "BK" is still readily visible long after the paper has been damaged.

SO then If you still contend forgery, which would be dishonest at this point, how would you explain the lack of damage to the envelope in evidence?

[Robert Harris]

Im not sure what you mean by washed out? Surely it does not look anywhere near as degraded as the one you posted.

Furthermore Bob any idiot knows (save one apparently) that under the negative image the erasures would stand out. Look at the examples I posted.

There is no forgery or loss of integrity on CE842 envelope.

Denial is your cover Bob, but the rest of us see clearly there is no forgery.

washed out...yeah...right LMAO.....

And how exactly does one "scrub" away signs of forgery?

Obviously desperate Bob.

Yes, you certainly are. And changing the color of your little picture doesn't change anything. This is the envelope at issue,

You obviously posted your photo, not because it reveals information but because it hides it.

And why are you dodging my questions, Michael? Are they too difficult for you?

Are you actually claiming that because you found a photo which has washed out some of the partial erasures, that they never existed?? Are you suggesting that I, or other conspiracy people fabricated those characters, Michael? If not, then where did they come from??

And even in your your well scrubbed photo, there are clearly character segments under the initials that were supposed to be Fritz's. How do you explain those, Michael?

And please answer my original question about how you proved this envelope was legitimate. So far you have only fed us a lot of unsupported claims that you can prove to save your life.

And why do you continue to dodge your claim about the Muchmore film? Are you going to tell us why you made that crap up too?

Robert,

How exactly did I "change the color" on anything? And again, how is the envelope I posted, from Hunts excellent scan washed out? It is certainly a superior copy to the one you posed as claims of forgery. I wonder why you did not use the best evidence when you clearly knew it existed.

If you are still contending that there was an erasure made, then how did they manage to do it without damageing the paper, as clearly seen in my sample envelope? I might also add that it does not take a rocket scientist to notice that "BK" is still readily visible long after the paper has been damaged.

SO then If you still contend forgery, which would be dishonest at this point, how would you explain the lack of damage to the envelope in evidence?

How exactly did I "change the color" on anything?

You changed the color to blue. If you can't remember how you did it, then don't ask me.

And will you please stop evading questions?? How do you explain the partially erased characters? Finding a photo that shows 80% of the those characters just doesn't cut it. Where did they come from Michael - even the ones on your photo.

And how do you explain the obvious smudged and partially erased characters that were on the original photo as well as the ones on both??

And for the fifth time, PLEASE tell us where you see JFK reacting in the Muchmore film as he reacted in the Towner film.

Are my questions too hard for you Michael?? If so, just let me know and I will repeat them with simpler words.

[Robert Harris]

Even if one includes Bennett as a firm witness for a first shot miss, however, and arbitrarily dismisses the statements of those hearing only two shots under the assumption they failed to hear the first shot, and the statements of those claiming the first shot was the head shot under the assumption their recollections are just not credible, the score remains 23-1 in favor of statements indicating that three shots were fired and the first one hit, vs. statements indicating that three shots were fired and the first one missed. Unless someone can come up with a reason why all these witnesses were wrong while Bennett, who was not even asked to testify to clarify his statements, was right, the evidence is overwhelming that the first shot hit.

Pat, you are wrong.

First, do a tally of the witnesses who were watching Jackie durng the early Zfilm. Everyone I am aware of, said she was looking to her left when the first shot was fired - including her. And she began to react by 170, turning toward her husband, never looking to the left side of the road again.

There was a shot fired circa 160 which was heard by some witnesses - perhaps because it made a noise when it shattered on the pavement. We see both Jackie and JFK react to it simultaneously. But no-one heard the shot at 223, including John Connally. That's because the early shots were fired from a suppressed weapon. Nor did they hear the shot that was fired during the Towner film. Now, before anyone laughs at that suggestion, PLEASE watch this video or at least, the first part of it. If JFK was not reacting to a gunshot then, then what was he reacting to??

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

If is also available on Youtube,

http://www.youtube.com/user/bobharris77#p/u/8/gkAc76n8q44

There may have been a shot fired at 160, but it most definitely was not the first of the three shots heard by most witnesses. The "we know when the shots struck because the occupants of the car turned argument" is a failed one. Mary Woodward said the occupants turned to look at her when she and her friends yelled out. Connally said he turned to his left and back real fast because he was stretching. In short, we don't know why they turned, and pretending we can discern shots by the reactions of but a few people, when dozens of witnesses, including those whose reactions we are judging, disagree with the conclusion the first shot was fired at frame 160, and that Kennedy calmly resumed waving to his right after the first shot, is silly.

The first shot miss at frame 160 is an absolute myth. I discuss this throughout chapters 5 thru 9b. A quick summary was already posted on this thread. In chapter 9b I go through Bugliosi's witnesses for a first shot miss, and show how he lies about almost all of them. You may want to take a look.

In trying to determine when shots were fired during a silent film, our most valuable resource is to study the visible reactions of the victims and the people around them.

JFK's first reactions was during the Towner film. He started to wave and within a half of a second, snapped his hand back, balling it into a fist. Then, within a fraction of a second, he dropped to his left and then straightened back up.

Have you looked at my presentation on this? What is your opinion about it?

I think that Roy Truly was correct in that the limo braked and came hard left to avoid the curb. I see no reaction from anyone that could even remotely be considered in reaction to a shot.

Then why was JFK the only one to react? And if the limo braked, why would that cause him to ball his hand into a fist and then fall toward Jackie??

Please be specific.

As for your ridiculous claim that his reaction could not have been to a gunshot, I don't think you believe that at all. You simply jump on any opportunity to fabricate a subjective opinion that contradicts me, without the slightest regard for the truth.

That's all part of your little campaign to follow me around from forum to forum and thread to thread, trolling and running resistance, even when you have to make a total fool out of yourself to do it.

In fact, JFK reacted EXACTLY as we would expect anyone to react if they had been pelted by debris from a missed shot.

And yet, there is not damage to the Limo from your imaginary shot, there is no evidence of anyone being hit by this debris, and there is not one piece of testimony that would concur that a shot had happened at this time.

Do you eve have any proof that his hand balls into a fist?

Do you have any evidence that he falls to his left?

Yep this is another Harris hallucination.

As for following you from forum to forum, I am a member here and at Duncan's place, is it not the purpose of a forum to debate and discuss ideas? I know that you would prefer I remain quiet, and not make you look so foolish, but that just is not going to happen.

History deserves accuracy, not fool-hearty assumptions.

smiling and waving?:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15782&view=findpost&p=190063

And BTW, that article has to be one of the stupidest and most illogical I have seen in a very long time. For example, you said, in regard to JFK's orientation at frame 180.

"FK was smiling and waving just as we can plainly see,and just as the witnesses in close proximity testified. "

Of course JFK was smiling and waving earlier. But would you please explain how you came to know that they were talking about him at frame 180, rather than an earlier frame?

And how does that ridiculously washed out and discolored distortion of the third floor window, prove that it was not broken out? And I'm still waiting for you to tell us what that darkened area really was.

And then you said this, which demonstrates that you didn't even listen to the video or were too thick to comprehend what I said,

"The time frame from 160 to 223 is 63 frames, or 3.44 seconds. Are we to believe that our sniper up there has managed to remove his silencer and reacquire the target in 3.44 seconds? I would suggest this is a bit much to ask of any of us to believe."

ALL three of the early shots were fired from a suppressed weapon. The one at 223 was heard by no-one, including Governor Connally who was hit by it. Now, I'm sure you will be eager to attack that too, but can't you at least try to comprehend what it is you are attacking?? Michael, I hope you realize that I do NOT call you an imbecile because I want to insult you.

Edited June 20, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Mike Williams]

Even if one includes Bennett as a firm witness for a first shot miss, however, and arbitrarily dismisses the statements of those hearing only two shots under the assumption they failed to hear the first shot, and the statements of those claiming the first shot was the head shot under the assumption their recollections are just not credible, the score remains 23-1 in favor of statements indicating that three shots were fired and the first one hit, vs. statements indicating that three shots were fired and the first one missed. Unless someone can come up with a reason why all these witnesses were wrong while Bennett, who was not even asked to testify to clarify his statements, was right, the evidence is overwhelming that the first shot hit.

Pat, you are wrong.

First, do a tally of the witnesses who were watching Jackie durng the early Zfilm. Everyone I am aware of, said she was looking to her left when the first shot was fired - including her. And she began to react by 170, turning toward her husband, never looking to the left side of the road again.

There was a shot fired circa 160 which was heard by some witnesses - perhaps because it made a noise when it shattered on the pavement. We see both Jackie and JFK react to it simultaneously. But no-one heard the shot at 223, including John Connally. That's because the early shots were fired from a suppressed weapon. Nor did they hear the shot that was fired during the Towner film. Now, before anyone laughs at that suggestion, PLEASE watch this video or at least, the first part of it. If JFK was not reacting to a gunshot then, then what was he reacting to??

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

If is also available on Youtube,

http://www.youtube.com/user/bobharris77#p/u/8/gkAc76n8q44

There may have been a shot fired at 160, but it most definitely was not the first of the three shots heard by most witnesses. The "we know when the shots struck because the occupants of the car turned argument" is a failed one. Mary Woodward said the occupants turned to look at her when she and her friends yelled out. Connally said he turned to his left and back real fast because he was stretching. In short, we don't know why they turned, and pretending we can discern shots by the reactions of but a few people, when dozens of witnesses, including those whose reactions we are judging, disagree with the conclusion the first shot was fired at frame 160, and that Kennedy calmly resumed waving to his right after the first shot, is silly.

The first shot miss at frame 160 is an absolute myth. I discuss this throughout chapters 5 thru 9b. A quick summary was already posted on this thread. In chapter 9b I go through Bugliosi's witnesses for a first shot miss, and show how he lies about almost all of them. You may want to take a look.

In trying to determine when shots were fired during a silent film, our most valuable resource is to study the visible reactions of the victims and the people around them.

JFK's first reactions was during the Towner film. He started to wave and within a half of a second, snapped his hand back, balling it into a fist. Then, within a fraction of a second, he dropped to his left and then straightened back up.

Have you looked at my presentation on this? What is your opinion about it?

I think that Roy Truly was correct in that the limo braked and came hard left to avoid the curb. I see no reaction from anyone that could even remotely be considered in reaction to a shot.

Then why was JFK the only one to react? And if the limo braked, why would that cause him to ball his hand into a fist and then fall toward Jackie??

Please be specific.

As for your ridiculous claim that his reaction could not have been to a gunshot, I don't think you believe that at all. You simply jump on any opportunity to fabricate a subjective opinion that contradicts me, without the slightest regard for the truth.

That's all part of your little campaign to follow me around from forum to forum and thread to thread, trolling and running resistance, even when you have to make a total fool out of yourself to do it.

In fact, JFK reacted EXACTLY as we would expect anyone to react if they had been pelted by debris from a missed shot.

And yet, there is not damage to the Limo from your imaginary shot, there is no evidence of anyone being hit by this debris, and there is not one piece of testimony that would concur that a shot had happened at this time.

Do you eve have any proof that his hand balls into a fist?

Do you have any evidence that he falls to his left?

Yep this is another Harris hallucination.

As for following you from forum to forum, I am a member here and at Duncan's place, is it not the purpose of a forum to debate and discuss ideas? I know that you would prefer I remain quiet, and not make you look so foolish, but that just is not going to happen.

History deserves accuracy, not fool-hearty assumptions.

smiling and waving?:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15782&view=findpost&p=190063

And BTW, that article has to be one of the stupidest and most illogical I have seen in a very long time. For example, you said, in regard to JFK's orientation at frame 180.

"FK was smiling and waving just as we can plainly see,and just as the witnesses in close proximity testified. "

Of course JFK was smiling and waving earlier. But would you please explain how you came to know that they were talking about him at frame 180, rather than an earlier frame?

And how does that ridiculously washed out and discolored distortion of the third floor window, prove that it was not broken out? And I'm still waiting for you to tell us what that darkened area really was.

And then you said this, which demonstrates that you didn't even listen to the video or were too thick to comprehend what I said,

"The time frame from 160 to 223 is 63 frames, or 3.44 seconds. Are we to believe that our sniper up there has managed to remove his silencer and reacquire the target in 3.44 seconds? I would suggest this is a bit much to ask of any of us to believe."

ALL three of the early shots were fired from a suppressed weapon. The one at 223 was heard by no-one, including Governor Connally who was hit by it. Now, I'm sure you will be eager to attack that too, but can't you at least try to comprehend what it is you are attacking?? Michael, I hope you realize that I do NOT call you an imbecile because I want to insult you.

Robert,

The very fact that you would call me an imbecile rolls off me for one simple reason, it is abundantly clear that you have no clue what you are talking about, so therefore, how could you understand what I am telling you?

[Robert Harris]

Even if one includes Bennett as a firm witness for a first shot miss, however, and arbitrarily dismisses the statements of those hearing only two shots under the assumption they failed to hear the first shot, and the statements of those claiming the first shot was the head shot under the assumption their recollections are just not credible, the score remains 23-1 in favor of statements indicating that three shots were fired and the first one hit, vs. statements indicating that three shots were fired and the first one missed. Unless someone can come up with a reason why all these witnesses were wrong while Bennett, who was not even asked to testify to clarify his statements, was right, the evidence is overwhelming that the first shot hit.

Pat, you are wrong.

First, do a tally of the witnesses who were watching Jackie durng the early Zfilm. Everyone I am aware of, said she was looking to her left when the first shot was fired - including her. And she began to react by 170, turning toward her husband, never looking to the left side of the road again.

There was a shot fired circa 160 which was heard by some witnesses - perhaps because it made a noise when it shattered on the pavement. We see both Jackie and JFK react to it simultaneously. But no-one heard the shot at 223, including John Connally. That's because the early shots were fired from a suppressed weapon. Nor did they hear the shot that was fired during the Towner film. Now, before anyone laughs at that suggestion, PLEASE watch this video or at least, the first part of it. If JFK was not reacting to a gunshot then, then what was he reacting to??

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

If is also available on Youtube,

http://www.youtube.com/user/bobharris77#p/u/8/gkAc76n8q44

There may have been a shot fired at 160, but it most definitely was not the first of the three shots heard by most witnesses. The "we know when the shots struck because the occupants of the car turned argument" is a failed one. Mary Woodward said the occupants turned to look at her when she and her friends yelled out. Connally said he turned to his left and back real fast because he was stretching. In short, we don't know why they turned, and pretending we can discern shots by the reactions of but a few people, when dozens of witnesses, including those whose reactions we are judging, disagree with the conclusion the first shot was fired at frame 160, and that Kennedy calmly resumed waving to his right after the first shot, is silly.

The first shot miss at frame 160 is an absolute myth. I discuss this throughout chapters 5 thru 9b. A quick summary was already posted on this thread. In chapter 9b I go through Bugliosi's witnesses for a first shot miss, and show how he lies about almost all of them. You may want to take a look.

In trying to determine when shots were fired during a silent film, our most valuable resource is to study the visible reactions of the victims and the people around them.

JFK's first reactions was during the Towner film. He started to wave and within a half of a second, snapped his hand back, balling it into a fist. Then, within a fraction of a second, he dropped to his left and then straightened back up.

Have you looked at my presentation on this? What is your opinion about it?

I think that Roy Truly was correct in that the limo braked and came hard left to avoid the curb. I see no reaction from anyone that could even remotely be considered in reaction to a shot.

Then why was JFK the only one to react? And if the limo braked, why would that cause him to ball his hand into a fist and then fall toward Jackie??

Please be specific.

As for your ridiculous claim that his reaction could not have been to a gunshot, I don't think you believe that at all. You simply jump on any opportunity to fabricate a subjective opinion that contradicts me, without the slightest regard for the truth.

That's all part of your little campaign to follow me around from forum to forum and thread to thread, trolling and running resistance, even when you have to make a total fool out of yourself to do it.

In fact, JFK reacted EXACTLY as we would expect anyone to react if they had been pelted by debris from a missed shot.

And yet, there is not damage to the Limo from your imaginary shot, there is no evidence of anyone being hit by this debris, and there is not one piece of testimony that would concur that a shot had happened at this time.

Do you eve have any proof that his hand balls into a fist?

Do you have any evidence that he falls to his left?

Yep this is another Harris hallucination.

As for following you from forum to forum, I am a member here and at Duncan's place, is it not the purpose of a forum to debate and discuss ideas? I know that you would prefer I remain quiet, and not make you look so foolish, but that just is not going to happen.

History deserves accuracy, not fool-hearty assumptions.

smiling and waving?:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15782&view=findpost&p=190063

And BTW, that article has to be one of the stupidest and most illogical I have seen in a very long time. For example, you said, in regard to JFK's orientation at frame 180.

"FK was smiling and waving just as we can plainly see,and just as the witnesses in close proximity testified. "

Of course JFK was smiling and waving earlier. But would you please explain how you came to know that they were talking about him at frame 180, rather than an earlier frame?

And how does that ridiculously washed out and discolored distortion of the third floor window, prove that it was not broken out? And I'm still waiting for you to tell us what that darkened area really was.

And then you said this, which demonstrates that you didn't even listen to the video or were too thick to comprehend what I said,

"The time frame from 160 to 223 is 63 frames, or 3.44 seconds. Are we to believe that our sniper up there has managed to remove his silencer and reacquire the target in 3.44 seconds? I would suggest this is a bit much to ask of any of us to believe."

ALL three of the early shots were fired from a suppressed weapon. The one at 223 was heard by no-one, including Governor Connally who was hit by it. Now, I'm sure you will be eager to attack that too, but can't you at least try to comprehend what it is you are attacking?? Michael, I hope you realize that I do NOT call you an imbecile because I want to insult you.

Robert,

The very fact that you would call me an imbecile rolls off me for one simple reason, it is abundantly clear that you have no clue what you are talking about, so therefore, how could you understand what I am telling you?

Michael, you are not just an imbecile. You are a stalker who has attacked almost every post I ever wrote in either of these forums for more than two months.

To do that, you have had to fabricate arguments that were beyond ridiculous and often contradicted your own statements. For example, you once argued that the reactions following frame 285 were caused by Greer slowing the limousine. When that failed, you then argued that there were no reactions at all and that they were all a figment of my imagination.

On another occassion, you tried to claim that a particular shot was impossible. When I asked if you used a CAD program to calculate the angles, you said you didn't use CAD at all and only needed a ruler. But a few days later, you forgot what you said, and claimed to have been a regular CAD user for years.

In this forum you have continued to post idiotic arguments. Finding a photographic of the CE842 envelope in which we cannot see all the artifacts that we can see in the original, does not make them go away, Michael. That is just an incredibly stupid argument.

And that is why you continue to evade nearly every question I ask you. YOU know as well as I do, that you have no answers. You know very well, that you just made up that phony claim about the Muchmore film, for example.

And you know very well, that you haven't got a speck of evidence or witness support for you claim that JFK was happily smiling and waving at frame 280.

In the other forum, you have stated on numerous occasions that you "refuted" the shot at 285. But when I asked you over and over and over again, more than a dozen times in total, to simply tell us how you did that, you went into your typical evasive maneuvers.

You had no answer Michael, because you couldn't refute that issue to save your life. All you could do, was pretend that you did.

I do NOT call you an imbecile in order to insult you Michael. I use that term because you are.

[Mike Williams]

Michael, you are not just an imbecile. You are a stalker who has attacked almost every post I ever wrote in either of these forums for more than two months.

And will continue to do so as long as you keep spewing incorrect information. These good folks deserve better.

To do that, you have had to fabricate arguments that were beyond ridiculous and often contradicted your own statements. For example, you once argued that the reactions following frame 285 were caused by Greer slowing the limousine. When that failed, you then argued that there were no reactions at all and that they were all a figment of my imagination.

So you have an issue with me determining I was incorrect in Greer's braking, and had to correct my opinion? Is this not what good research is about?

On another occassion, you tried to claim that a particular shot was impossible. When I asked if you used a CAD program to calculate the angles, you said you didn't use CAD at all and only needed a ruler. But a few days later, you forgot what you said, and claimed to have been a regular CAD user for years.

Robert if your going to accuse me of something you should at least get the particulars correct. You asked me if I examined a shot using CAD, to which I told you I never use CAD for calculating trajectory, as one does not need CAD to manage that. At some point someone asked about using CAD, and I told them I used Rhino CAD. Of course I never used CAD for trajectory, I used it for work lol. You seem unable to make the connection here, which I am sure is a surprise to no one. You have since claimed I lied about this, which I did not and have not. I do not and have never used CAD for JFK trajectory work.

In this forum you have continued to post idiotic arguments. Finding a photographic of the CE842 envelope in which we cannot see all the artifacts that we can see in the original, does not make them go away, Michael. That is just an incredibly stupid argument.

Here is a tip. The reason you cannot see the "artifacts" in my copy is because they don's exist. They also do not exist in your photo Robert. In your photos there are shadows etc. Mine is crystal clear. Others have told you this as well. However you refuse to acknowledge that my copy was far superior and in fact shows no sign of the forgery you proclaim.

Hunt's that I posted:

Your degraded and shadow ridden version:

Obviously the bottom of yours has shadows that you contend are erasure marks etc clearly you were wrong:

http://www.jfkballistics.com/CE842.html

My article clearly proves that. Notice how not one person has come to your aid on this issue? Why do you suppose that is? Because they see your incorrect. Bill Kelly even very correctly suggest we move on past this and examine the fragments, which I am in full agreement with.

And that is why you continue to evade nearly every question I ask you. YOU know as well as I do, that you have no answers. You know very well, that you just made up that phony claim about the Muchmore film, for example.

I would not bet on that, more on this coming soon to a theater near you. And those who know me know I don't say it if I cant show it. I'm working on this article just as we speak, along with a few others. Your gonna wanna rethink this pretty soon I am guessing.

And you know very well, that you haven't got a speck of evidence or witness support for you claim that JFK was happily smiling and waving at frame 280.

I really wish I knew where you got this from, I have never said any such thing. I said that JFK is smiling broadly and waving in frames near 180 Robert. This is when you claim he is grimacing and shielding his face. I have clearly shown you this time and again, if you don't believe that here is the post:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15782&view=findpost&p=190063

In the other forum, you have stated on numerous occasions that you "refuted" the shot at 285. But when I asked you over and over and over again, more than a dozen times in total, to simply tell us how you did that, you went into your typical evasive maneuvers.

You had no answer Michael, because you couldn't refute that issue to save your life. All you could do, was pretend that you did.

I do NOT call you an imbecile in order to insult you Michael. I use that term because you are.

The reason I refuse to answer you after repeating my self far to many times, is that it never sinks in with you. Your theories are a ballistic nightmare, and completely notional. Your very base of "facts" are assumptions. Frankly they are a joke. And as you can see they get little support.

If I am an imbecile Robert, and I can see through your sham of a theory, then I am just as certain the rest of these good folks can as well.

If not all they need do is read back over my posts in reply to your foolishness.

Here's one to start with:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15782&view=findpost&p=190063

Remember this is part of your back peddling about silencers and high power rifles! LOL!

Enjoy the read folks.

[Pat Speer]

there is the coneshaped shockwave that precedes the bullet, spreading out in a fan behind the bullet.. There are also buzzes or flutters, and there are echoes.

Precisely! This is what makes the thought of silencers to ridiculous for any one who knows ballistics to contemplate.

Wrong, Mike. Once again, you want to believe something so you claim it as true.

From patspeer.com, chapter 20:

While reading about the CIA’s overthrow of the Guatemalan Government in 1954, I discovered that, among the supply lists, lists of communists to be killed after the take-over, and other documents released in 1997, there was a CIA Manual on Assassination. In this manual there were several relevant passages. At one point, when discussing the advantages and disadvantages of assassinating people with firearms, the manual relates "Public figures or guarded officials may be killed with great reliability and some safety if a firing point can be established prior to an official occasion. The propaganda value of this system may be high.” (Note that the propaganda chief for this operation was future Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt, who, shortly before his death, admitted an involvement in the Kennedy assassination to his son, and claimed David Morales, one of the CIA's para-military trainers for the Guatemalan Operation, and presumably one of those handing out the CIA' Manual on Assassination, was also involved.) Elsewhere, the manual deals specifically with the issue of subsonic charges, noting “pistols, submachine guns and any sort of improvised carbine or rifle which will take a low velocity cartridge can be silenced,” and then cautioning “Because permissible velocity is low, effective precision range is held to about 100 yards with rifle or carbine type weapons.”

Further confirmation came from studying the supply lists prepared for the Guatemalan op. On one such list there is the surprising item ".22 cal. rifles w/silencers." As larger caliber rifles were available, this gives a clear indication that .22 caliber rifles with silencers were a preferred assassination weapon, and that the 100 yard limit mentioned in the assassination manual was true for these weapons. While I've taken a lot of guff from shooters about this, as they all seem convinced that a sniper rifle firing a small subsonic bullet would be nearly worthless at the distances of Dealey Plaza, I suspect their concern is overstated. Geoffrey Boothroyd, the English Firearms expert who advised James Bond creator Ian Fleming on the weapons described in his books, once famously wrote Fleming: "Silencers. These I do not like. The only excuse for using one is a .22 rifle using low-velocity ammunition, i.e., below the speed of sound." Former sniper Craig Roberts, in his book Kill Zone, moreover, wrote of his suspicion that a "CIA-issued .22 caliber Model 74 Winchester silenced sniper rifle" was fired at Kennedy, wounding him in the throat.

In 2007, at a swap meet, I came across an old book entitled Everyday Ballistics that gave me more reason to believe a silencer was used on 11-22-63. This book had been the property of the U.S. Navy. In the chapter on bullet drop, it reports that a fully charged .22 long rifle bullet would only drop a foot or so over a distance of 270 feet, the approximate distance from the roof of the Dal-Tex Building to Kennedy at the moment of the single-bullet theory. In a subsequent chapter, it makes the surprising assertion that a subsonic bullet fired at 1000 fps would have less wind deflection than a similar bullet fired at a faster speed. It goes on to note that a .22 long rifle bullet fired at 1000 fps. in a 5 MPH cross wind would suffer less than two inches of deflection at 100 yards and less than a half inch deflection at 50 yards. From this it seems clear that a well-practiced shooter firing a subsonic .22 caliber rifle or M-16 from the Dal-Tex Building could easily have hit Kennedy, or Connally, or both.

[Mike Williams]

there is the coneshaped shockwave that precedes the bullet, spreading out in a fan behind the bullet.. There are also buzzes or flutters, and there are echoes.

Precisely! This is what makes the thought of silencers to ridiculous for any one who knows ballistics to contemplate.

Wrong, Mike. Once again, you want to believe something so you claim it as true.

From patspeer.com, chapter 20:

While reading about the CIA’s overthrow of the Guatemalan Government in 1954, I discovered that, among the supply lists, lists of communists to be killed after the take-over, and other documents released in 1997, there was a CIA Manual on Assassination. In this manual there were several relevant passages. At one point, when discussing the advantages and disadvantages of assassinating people with firearms, the manual relates "Public figures or guarded officials may be killed with great reliability and some safety if a firing point can be established prior to an official occasion. The propaganda value of this system may be high.” (Note that the propaganda chief for this operation was future Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt, who, shortly before his death, admitted an involvement in the Kennedy assassination to his son, and claimed David Morales, one of the CIA's para-military trainers for the Guatemalan Operation, and presumably one of those handing out the CIA' Manual on Assassination, was also involved.) Elsewhere, the manual deals specifically with the issue of subsonic charges, noting “pistols, submachine guns and any sort of improvised carbine or rifle which will take a low velocity cartridge can be silenced,” and then cautioning “Because permissible velocity is low, effective precision range is held to about 100 yards with rifle or carbine type weapons.”

Further confirmation came from studying the supply lists prepared for the Guatemalan op. On one such list there is the surprising item ".22 cal. rifles w/silencers." As larger caliber rifles were available, this gives a clear indication that .22 caliber rifles with silencers were a preferred assassination weapon, and that the 100 yard limit mentioned in the assassination manual was true for these weapons. While I've taken a lot of guff from shooters about this, as they all seem convinced that a sniper rifle firing a small subsonic bullet would be nearly worthless at the distances of Dealey Plaza, I suspect their concern is overstated. Geoffrey Boothroyd, the English Firearms expert who advised James Bond creator Ian Fleming on the weapons described in his books, once famously wrote Fleming: "Silencers. These I do not like. The only excuse for using one is a .22 rifle using low-velocity ammunition, i.e., below the speed of sound." Former sniper Craig Roberts, in his book Kill Zone, moreover, wrote of his suspicion that a "CIA-issued .22 caliber Model 74 Winchester silenced sniper rifle" was fired at Kennedy, wounding him in the throat.

In 2007, at a swap meet, I came across an old book entitled Everyday Ballistics that gave me more reason to believe a silencer was used on 11-22-63. This book had been the property of the U.S. Navy. In the chapter on bullet drop, it reports that a fully charged .22 long rifle bullet would only drop a foot or so over a distance of 270 feet, the approximate distance from the roof of the Dal-Tex Building to Kennedy at the moment of the single-bullet theory. In a subsequent chapter, it makes the surprising assertion that a subsonic bullet fired at 1000 fps would have less wind deflection than a similar bullet fired at a faster speed. It goes on to note that a .22 long rifle bullet fired at 1000 fps. in a 5 MPH cross wind would suffer less than two inches of deflection at 100 yards and less than a half inch deflection at 50 yards. From this it seems clear that a well-practiced shooter firing a subsonic .22 caliber rifle or M-16 from the Dal-Tex Building could easily have hit Kennedy, or Connally, or both.

So here is what I suggest you do. Study the ballistics of these rounds for yourself and then make a determination. Or if you like I can do it for you. I recommend this, because on any given day you can pick up a rifle magazine, or other publication, and find any number of inaccuracies involving ballistics.

I've done this work before, and would be more than happy to do so again and address your issues above Pat, should you have any interest in it.

Additionally, would you like to qualify your "once again" remark?

[Pat Speer]

there is the coneshaped shockwave that precedes the bullet, spreading out in a fan behind the bullet.. There are also buzzes or flutters, and there are echoes.

Precisely! This is what makes the thought of silencers to ridiculous for any one who knows ballistics to contemplate.

Wrong, Mike. Once again, you want to believe something so you claim it as true.

From patspeer.com, chapter 20:

While reading about the CIA’s overthrow of the Guatemalan Government in 1954, I discovered that, among the supply lists, lists of communists to be killed after the take-over, and other documents released in 1997, there was a CIA Manual on Assassination. In this manual there were several relevant passages. At one point, when discussing the advantages and disadvantages of assassinating people with firearms, the manual relates "Public figures or guarded officials may be killed with great reliability and some safety if a firing point can be established prior to an official occasion. The propaganda value of this system may be high.” (Note that the propaganda chief for this operation was future Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt, who, shortly before his death, admitted an involvement in the Kennedy assassination to his son, and claimed David Morales, one of the CIA's para-military trainers for the Guatemalan Operation, and presumably one of those handing out the CIA' Manual on Assassination, was also involved.) Elsewhere, the manual deals specifically with the issue of subsonic charges, noting “pistols, submachine guns and any sort of improvised carbine or rifle which will take a low velocity cartridge can be silenced,” and then cautioning “Because permissible velocity is low, effective precision range is held to about 100 yards with rifle or carbine type weapons.”

Further confirmation came from studying the supply lists prepared for the Guatemalan op. On one such list there is the surprising item ".22 cal. rifles w/silencers." As larger caliber rifles were available, this gives a clear indication that .22 caliber rifles with silencers were a preferred assassination weapon, and that the 100 yard limit mentioned in the assassination manual was true for these weapons. While I've taken a lot of guff from shooters about this, as they all seem convinced that a sniper rifle firing a small subsonic bullet would be nearly worthless at the distances of Dealey Plaza, I suspect their concern is overstated. Geoffrey Boothroyd, the English Firearms expert who advised James Bond creator Ian Fleming on the weapons described in his books, once famously wrote Fleming: "Silencers. These I do not like. The only excuse for using one is a .22 rifle using low-velocity ammunition, i.e., below the speed of sound." Former sniper Craig Roberts, in his book Kill Zone, moreover, wrote of his suspicion that a "CIA-issued .22 caliber Model 74 Winchester silenced sniper rifle" was fired at Kennedy, wounding him in the throat.

In 2007, at a swap meet, I came across an old book entitled Everyday Ballistics that gave me more reason to believe a silencer was used on 11-22-63. This book had been the property of the U.S. Navy. In the chapter on bullet drop, it reports that a fully charged .22 long rifle bullet would only drop a foot or so over a distance of 270 feet, the approximate distance from the roof of the Dal-Tex Building to Kennedy at the moment of the single-bullet theory. In a subsequent chapter, it makes the surprising assertion that a subsonic bullet fired at 1000 fps would have less wind deflection than a similar bullet fired at a faster speed. It goes on to note that a .22 long rifle bullet fired at 1000 fps. in a 5 MPH cross wind would suffer less than two inches of deflection at 100 yards and less than a half inch deflection at 50 yards. From this it seems clear that a well-practiced shooter firing a subsonic .22 caliber rifle or M-16 from the Dal-Tex Building could easily have hit Kennedy, or Connally, or both.

So here is what I suggest you do. Study the ballistics of these rounds for yourself and then make a determination. Or if you like I can do it for you. I recommend this, because on any given day you can pick up a rifle magazine, or other publication, and find any number of inaccuracies involving ballistics.

I've done this work before, and would be more than happy to do so again and address your issues above Pat, should you have any interest in it.

Additionally, would you like to qualify your "once again" remark?

Mike, it doesn't matter what you or I think about the ballistics of a .22 subsonic round. What matters--as far as its possible use--is what shooters were thinking in 1963. And all indications are that the CIA was training assassins to believe a .22 subsonic round was effective up to 100 yards.

[Mike Williams]

there is the coneshaped shockwave that precedes the bullet, spreading out in a fan behind the bullet.. There are also buzzes or flutters, and there are echoes.

Precisely! This is what makes the thought of silencers to ridiculous for any one who knows ballistics to contemplate.

Wrong, Mike. Once again, you want to believe something so you claim it as true.

From patspeer.com, chapter 20:

While reading about the CIA’s overthrow of the Guatemalan Government in 1954, I discovered that, among the supply lists, lists of communists to be killed after the take-over, and other documents released in 1997, there was a CIA Manual on Assassination. In this manual there were several relevant passages. At one point, when discussing the advantages and disadvantages of assassinating people with firearms, the manual relates "Public figures or guarded officials may be killed with great reliability and some safety if a firing point can be established prior to an official occasion. The propaganda value of this system may be high.” (Note that the propaganda chief for this operation was future Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt, who, shortly before his death, admitted an involvement in the Kennedy assassination to his son, and claimed David Morales, one of the CIA's para-military trainers for the Guatemalan Operation, and presumably one of those handing out the CIA' Manual on Assassination, was also involved.) Elsewhere, the manual deals specifically with the issue of subsonic charges, noting “pistols, submachine guns and any sort of improvised carbine or rifle which will take a low velocity cartridge can be silenced,” and then cautioning “Because permissible velocity is low, effective precision range is held to about 100 yards with rifle or carbine type weapons.”

Further confirmation came from studying the supply lists prepared for the Guatemalan op. On one such list there is the surprising item ".22 cal. rifles w/silencers." As larger caliber rifles were available, this gives a clear indication that .22 caliber rifles with silencers were a preferred assassination weapon, and that the 100 yard limit mentioned in the assassination manual was true for these weapons. While I've taken a lot of guff from shooters about this, as they all seem convinced that a sniper rifle firing a small subsonic bullet would be nearly worthless at the distances of Dealey Plaza, I suspect their concern is overstated. Geoffrey Boothroyd, the English Firearms expert who advised James Bond creator Ian Fleming on the weapons described in his books, once famously wrote Fleming: "Silencers. These I do not like. The only excuse for using one is a .22 rifle using low-velocity ammunition, i.e., below the speed of sound." Former sniper Craig Roberts, in his book Kill Zone, moreover, wrote of his suspicion that a "CIA-issued .22 caliber Model 74 Winchester silenced sniper rifle" was fired at Kennedy, wounding him in the throat.

In 2007, at a swap meet, I came across an old book entitled Everyday Ballistics that gave me more reason to believe a silencer was used on 11-22-63. This book had been the property of the U.S. Navy. In the chapter on bullet drop, it reports that a fully charged .22 long rifle bullet would only drop a foot or so over a distance of 270 feet, the approximate distance from the roof of the Dal-Tex Building to Kennedy at the moment of the single-bullet theory. In a subsequent chapter, it makes the surprising assertion that a subsonic bullet fired at 1000 fps would have less wind deflection than a similar bullet fired at a faster speed. It goes on to note that a .22 long rifle bullet fired at 1000 fps. in a 5 MPH cross wind would suffer less than two inches of deflection at 100 yards and less than a half inch deflection at 50 yards. From this it seems clear that a well-practiced shooter firing a subsonic .22 caliber rifle or M-16 from the Dal-Tex Building could easily have hit Kennedy, or Connally, or both.

So here is what I suggest you do. Study the ballistics of these rounds for yourself and then make a determination. Or if you like I can do it for you. I recommend this, because on any given day you can pick up a rifle magazine, or other publication, and find any number of inaccuracies involving ballistics.

I've done this work before, and would be more than happy to do so again and address your issues above Pat, should you have any interest in it.

Additionally, would you like to qualify your "once again" remark?

Mike, it doesn't matter what you or I think about the ballistics of a .22 subsonic round. What matters--as far as its possible use--is what shooters were thinking in 1963. And all indications are that the CIA was training assassins to believe a .22 subsonic round was effective up to 100 yards.

However. A study of the ballistics of this type of usage might prove useful in understanding its absurdity. Using a .22 SS to put up to someones head, sure. Silenced, Sure its subsonic. Expecting it to break the skin at over 50 yards, rather comical at the very least, out right preposterous at best.