Mike Williams Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Enjoy. Find article here. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Enjoy. Find article here. Mike Mike, It's a shame that everything you have to say is for naught, especially things that you seem to know a lot about because you betrayed your subjective, psychological bias by acknowledging that you also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper, something that all objective observers have determined to be false. Therefore there should be no serious interest in anything you have to say about ballistics, or guns or bullets or anything as long as you maintain the idea that the Patsy was the Sniper. Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 Enjoy. Find article here. Mike Mike, It's a shame that everything you have to say is for naught, especially things that you seem to know a lot about because you betrayed your subjective, psychological bias by acknowledging that you also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper, something that all objective observers have determined to be false. Therefore there should be no serious interest in anything you have to say about ballistics, or guns or bullets or anything as long as you maintain the idea that the Patsy was the Sniper. Bill Kelly Amazingly enough Bill this is not the case. The ballistic evidence in the case points the origin of fire specifically to that Carcano, the ballistic evidence I have presented involves the rifle only, and is in fact relevant to the case. Of course should you ever, at any time, wish to present evidence of any other weapon being used, I will examine that with the same tenacity, until then, this is the only weapon that fired any shots. I wonder why the Ct community works so very hard to attempt to describe this thing as a worthless stick, when it was a perfectly capable weapon? Probably for the same reason that you dismiss my work, not because you have any evidence to refute it, but because if is beyond the religious beliefs some hold towards conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Enjoy. Find article here. Mike Mike, It's a shame that everything you have to say is for naught, especially things that you seem to know a lot about because you betrayed your subjective, psychological bias by acknowledging that you also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper, something that all objective observers have determined to be false. Therefore there should be no serious interest in anything you have to say about ballistics, or guns or bullets or anything as long as you maintain the idea that the Patsy was the Sniper. Bill Kelly Amazingly enough Bill this is not the case. The ballistic evidence in the case points the origin of fire specifically to that Carcano, the ballistic evidence I have presented involves the rifle only, and is in fact relevant to the case. Of course should you ever, at any time, wish to present evidence of any other weapon being used, I will examine that with the same tenacity, until then, this is the only weapon that fired any shots. I wonder why the Ct community works so very hard to attempt to describe this thing as a worthless stick, when it was a perfectly capable weapon? Probably for the same reason that you dismiss my work, not because you have any evidence to refute it, but because if is beyond the religious beliefs some hold towards conspiracy. Mike, I never said it didn't originate with that rifle. I said that you nor anyone else can put Oswald behind the rifle and pulling the trigger, which is the point that discredits you. You can take that rifle all the way to Shanghi and back and make it do whatever it is you want it to do, but you can't put Lee Harvey Oswald behind the sights and pulling the trigger. Get that straight. And another thing, there is no such thing as a Conspiracy Thorists TC Community at all. That's another thing you imagine. Get it - Oswald not the Sixth Floor Sniper - he was set up as the Patsy, and there is no such thing as a CT Community. Begin by getting those two things right and then maybe somebody will listen to you. And your friend David Von Pain can't get the first sentence in his article right, so why should anybody believe him either? Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 Enjoy. Find article here. Mike Mike, It's a shame that everything you have to say is for naught, especially things that you seem to know a lot about because you betrayed your subjective, psychological bias by acknowledging that you also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper, something that all objective observers have determined to be false. Therefore there should be no serious interest in anything you have to say about ballistics, or guns or bullets or anything as long as you maintain the idea that the Patsy was the Sniper. Bill Kelly Amazingly enough Bill this is not the case. The ballistic evidence in the case points the origin of fire specifically to that Carcano, the ballistic evidence I have presented involves the rifle only, and is in fact relevant to the case. Of course should you ever, at any time, wish to present evidence of any other weapon being used, I will examine that with the same tenacity, until then, this is the only weapon that fired any shots. I wonder why the Ct community works so very hard to attempt to describe this thing as a worthless stick, when it was a perfectly capable weapon? Probably for the same reason that you dismiss my work, not because you have any evidence to refute it, but because if is beyond the religious beliefs some hold towards conspiracy. Mike, I never said it didn't originate with that rifle. I said that you nor anyone else can put Oswald behind the rifle and pulling the trigger, which is the point that discredits you. You can take that rifle all the way to Shanghi and back and make it do whatever it is you want it to do, but you can't put Lee Harvey Oswald behind the sights and pulling the trigger. Get that straight. And another thing, there is no such thing as a Conspiracy Thorists TC Community at all. That's another thing you imagine. Get it - Oswald not the Sixth Floor Sniper - he was set up as the Patsy, and there is no such thing as a CT Community. Begin by getting those two things right and then maybe somebody will listen to you. And your friend David Von Pain can't get the first sentence in his article right, so why should anybody believe him either? Bill Kelly Gee Bill, Why all the hostility? Because the evidence that the CT community has misrepresented the ballistic evidence for years is coming out? Amazingly enough I have actually read where some kooks don't even believe that Carcano was used. Well Bill, ya know what? It was. Now only was it used, it was the only weapon used. Unless of course you have some fragments that came from somewhere else you would like for me to examine.....but you don't, because there is none, in 47 years, not one. It was directly tied to Oswald, it was his rifle. SO you can whine and cry all you want, but your boy looks guilty all day. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Enjoy. Find article here. Mike Mike, It's a shame that everything you have to say is for naught, especially things that you seem to know a lot about because you betrayed your subjective, psychological bias by acknowledging that you also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper, something that all objective observers have determined to be false. Therefore there should be no serious interest in anything you have to say about ballistics, or guns or bullets or anything as long as you maintain the idea that the Patsy was the Sniper. Bill Kelly Amazingly enough Bill this is not the case. The ballistic evidence in the case points the origin of fire specifically to that Carcano, the ballistic evidence I have presented involves the rifle only, and is in fact relevant to the case. Of course should you ever, at any time, wish to present evidence of any other weapon being used, I will examine that with the same tenacity, until then, this is the only weapon that fired any shots. I wonder why the Ct community works so very hard to attempt to describe this thing as a worthless stick, when it was a perfectly capable weapon? Probably for the same reason that you dismiss my work, not because you have any evidence to refute it, but because if is beyond the religious beliefs some hold towards conspiracy. Mike, I never said it didn't originate with that rifle. I said that you nor anyone else can put Oswald behind the rifle and pulling the trigger, which is the point that discredits you. You can take that rifle all the way to Shanghi and back and make it do whatever it is you want it to do, but you can't put Lee Harvey Oswald behind the sights and pulling the trigger. Get that straight. And another thing, there is no such thing as a Conspiracy Thorists TC Community at all. That's another thing you imagine. Get it - Oswald not the Sixth Floor Sniper - he was set up as the Patsy, and there is no such thing as a CT Community. Begin by getting those two things right and then maybe somebody will listen to you. And your friend David Von Pain can't get the first sentence in his article right, so why should anybody believe him either? Bill Kelly Gee Bill, Why all the hostility? Because the evidence that the CT community has misrepresented the ballistic evidence for years is coming out? Amazingly enough I have actually read where some kooks don't even believe that Carcano was used. Well Bill, ya know what? It was. Now only was it used, it was the only weapon used. Unless of course you have some fragments that came from somewhere else you would like for me to examine.....but you don't, because there is none, in 47 years, not one. It was directly tied to Oswald, it was his rifle. SO you can whine and cry all you want, but your boy looks guilty all day. Mike I don't say Oswald is innocent or has no connection to the rifle. You're imagining things again. I don't say all the things that your imaginary "CT Communtiy" says, all I ask for is that someone who claims to be an objective crime scene investigator be one. I just wanted to make sure that you really aren't the objective ballistics expert you try to come across as, because if you try to put Oswald behind the trigger of that rifle you really are just a pigheaded lone nutt hack wearing blinders. I offered you the altertaive of discussing the Sixth Floor Sniper by calling him that - the one who wore a white shirt opened at the colar, had a pattern bald spot on the top of his head, stuck around for four to five minutes after the last shot and moved the Sniper's Nest Boxes around, the guy who wasn't Oswald. But by insisting that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper you call your own bluff. Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 Enjoy. Find article here. Mike Mike, It's a shame that everything you have to say is for naught, especially things that you seem to know a lot about because you betrayed your subjective, psychological bias by acknowledging that you also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper, something that all objective observers have determined to be false. Therefore there should be no serious interest in anything you have to say about ballistics, or guns or bullets or anything as long as you maintain the idea that the Patsy was the Sniper. Bill Kelly Amazingly enough Bill this is not the case. The ballistic evidence in the case points the origin of fire specifically to that Carcano, the ballistic evidence I have presented involves the rifle only, and is in fact relevant to the case. Of course should you ever, at any time, wish to present evidence of any other weapon being used, I will examine that with the same tenacity, until then, this is the only weapon that fired any shots. I wonder why the Ct community works so very hard to attempt to describe this thing as a worthless stick, when it was a perfectly capable weapon? Probably for the same reason that you dismiss my work, not because you have any evidence to refute it, but because if is beyond the religious beliefs some hold towards conspiracy. Mike, I never said it didn't originate with that rifle. I said that you nor anyone else can put Oswald behind the rifle and pulling the trigger, which is the point that discredits you. You can take that rifle all the way to Shanghi and back and make it do whatever it is you want it to do, but you can't put Lee Harvey Oswald behind the sights and pulling the trigger. Get that straight. And another thing, there is no such thing as a Conspiracy Thorists TC Community at all. That's another thing you imagine. Get it - Oswald not the Sixth Floor Sniper - he was set up as the Patsy, and there is no such thing as a CT Community. Begin by getting those two things right and then maybe somebody will listen to you. And your friend David Von Pain can't get the first sentence in his article right, so why should anybody believe him either? Bill Kelly Gee Bill, Why all the hostility? Because the evidence that the CT community has misrepresented the ballistic evidence for years is coming out? Amazingly enough I have actually read where some kooks don't even believe that Carcano was used. Well Bill, ya know what? It was. Now only was it used, it was the only weapon used. Unless of course you have some fragments that came from somewhere else you would like for me to examine.....but you don't, because there is none, in 47 years, not one. It was directly tied to Oswald, it was his rifle. SO you can whine and cry all you want, but your boy looks guilty all day. Mike I don't say Oswald is innocent or has no connection to the rifle. You're imagining things again. I don't say all the things that your imaginary "CT Communtiy" says, all I ask for is that someone who claims to be an objective crime scene investigator be one. I just wanted to make sure that you really aren't the objective ballistics expert you try to come across as, because if you try to put Oswald behind the trigger of that rifle you really are just a pigheaded lone nutt hack wearing blinders. I offered you the altertaive of discussing the Sixth Floor Sniper by calling him that - the one who wore a white shirt opened at the colar, had a pattern bald spot on the top of his head, stuck around for four to five minutes after the last shot and moved the Sniper's Nest Boxes around, the guy who wasn't Oswald. But by insisting that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper you call your own bluff. Bill Kelly OK How about I slow down and try this again. What does an evaluation of the rifle scope and its accuracy have to do with Oswald? Perhaps rephrasing it will help it stick a bit better? My articles address the CT Community and its claims that the Carcano was an inoperable inaccurate piece of junk, what the heck does that have to do with Oswald? I would offer that if the community is this desperate to lie about the rifle, then how far will it go? How can you say that Oswald was the patsy, and then claim that you believe he may not be innocent? How exactly does that work Bill, is that like being a little pregnant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 Enjoy. Find article here. Mike Mike, It's a shame that everything you have to say is for naught, especially things that you seem to know a lot about because you betrayed your subjective, psychological bias by acknowledging that you also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper, something that all objective observers have determined to be false. Therefore there should be no serious interest in anything you have to say about ballistics, or guns or bullets or anything as long as you maintain the idea that the Patsy was the Sniper. Bill Kelly Amazingly enough Bill this is not the case. The ballistic evidence in the case points the origin of fire specifically to that Carcano, the ballistic evidence I have presented involves the rifle only, and is in fact relevant to the case. Of course should you ever, at any time, wish to present evidence of any other weapon being used, I will examine that with the same tenacity, until then, this is the only weapon that fired any shots. I wonder why the Ct community works so very hard to attempt to describe this thing as a worthless stick, when it was a perfectly capable weapon? Probably for the same reason that you dismiss my work, not because you have any evidence to refute it, but because if is beyond the religious beliefs some hold towards conspiracy. Mike, I never said it didn't originate with that rifle. I said that you nor anyone else can put Oswald behind the rifle and pulling the trigger, which is the point that discredits you. You can take that rifle all the way to Shanghi and back and make it do whatever it is you want it to do, but you can't put Lee Harvey Oswald behind the sights and pulling the trigger. Get that straight. And another thing, there is no such thing as a Conspiracy Thorists TC Community at all. That's another thing you imagine. Get it - Oswald not the Sixth Floor Sniper - he was set up as the Patsy, and there is no such thing as a CT Community. Begin by getting those two things right and then maybe somebody will listen to you. And your friend David Von Pain can't get the first sentence in his article right, so why should anybody believe him either? Bill Kelly Gee Bill, Why all the hostility? Because the evidence that the CT community has misrepresented the ballistic evidence for years is coming out? Amazingly enough I have actually read where some kooks don't even believe that Carcano was used. Well Bill, ya know what? It was. Now only was it used, it was the only weapon used. Unless of course you have some fragments that came from somewhere else you would like for me to examine.....but you don't, because there is none, in 47 years, not one. It was directly tied to Oswald, it was his rifle. SO you can whine and cry all you want, but your boy looks guilty all day. Mike I don't say Oswald is innocent or has no connection to the rifle. You're imagining things again. I don't say all the things that your imaginary "CT Communtiy" says, all I ask for is that someone who claims to be an objective crime scene investigator be one. I just wanted to make sure that you really aren't the objective ballistics expert you try to come across as, because if you try to put Oswald behind the trigger of that rifle you really are just a pigheaded lone nutt hack wearing blinders. I offered you the altertaive of discussing the Sixth Floor Sniper by calling him that - the one who wore a white shirt opened at the colar, had a pattern bald spot on the top of his head, stuck around for four to five minutes after the last shot and moved the Sniper's Nest Boxes around, the guy who wasn't Oswald. But by insisting that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper you call your own bluff. Bill Kelly OK How about I slow down and try this again. What does an evaluation of the rifle scope and its accuracy have to do with Oswald? Perhaps rephrasing it will help it stick a bit better? My articles address the CT Community and its claims that the Carcano was an inoperable inaccurate piece of junk, what the heck does that have to do with Oswald? I would offer that if the community is this desperate to lie about the rifle, then how far will it go? How can you say that Oswald was the patsy, and then claim that you believe he may not be innocent? How exactly does that work Bill, is that like being a little pregnant? I might also add Bill that your claim of: I just wanted to make sure that you really aren't the objective ballistics expert you try to come across as Is ridiculous, my analysis involves hard numbers and facts, its difficult to say that 2+2 does not equal 4 because I am not objective lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Enjoy. Find article here. Mike Mike, It's a shame that everything you have to say is for naught, especially things that you seem to know a lot about because you betrayed your subjective, psychological bias by acknowledging that you also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper, something that all objective observers have determined to be false. Therefore there should be no serious interest in anything you have to say about ballistics, or guns or bullets or anything as long as you maintain the idea that the Patsy was the Sniper. Bill Kelly Amazingly enough Bill this is not the case. The ballistic evidence in the case points the origin of fire specifically to that Carcano, the ballistic evidence I have presented involves the rifle only, and is in fact relevant to the case. Of course should you ever, at any time, wish to present evidence of any other weapon being used, I will examine that with the same tenacity, until then, this is the only weapon that fired any shots. I wonder why the Ct community works so very hard to attempt to describe this thing as a worthless stick, when it was a perfectly capable weapon? Probably for the same reason that you dismiss my work, not because you have any evidence to refute it, but because if is beyond the religious beliefs some hold towards conspiracy. Mike, I never said it didn't originate with that rifle. I said that you nor anyone else can put Oswald behind the rifle and pulling the trigger, which is the point that discredits you. You can take that rifle all the way to Shanghi and back and make it do whatever it is you want it to do, but you can't put Lee Harvey Oswald behind the sights and pulling the trigger. Get that straight. And another thing, there is no such thing as a Conspiracy Thorists TC Community at all. That's another thing you imagine. Get it - Oswald not the Sixth Floor Sniper - he was set up as the Patsy, and there is no such thing as a CT Community. Begin by getting those two things right and then maybe somebody will listen to you. And your friend David Von Pain can't get the first sentence in his article right, so why should anybody believe him either? Bill Kelly Gee Bill, Why all the hostility? Because the evidence that the CT community has misrepresented the ballistic evidence for years is coming out? Amazingly enough I have actually read where some kooks don't even believe that Carcano was used. Well Bill, ya know what? It was. Now only was it used, it was the only weapon used. Unless of course you have some fragments that came from somewhere else you would like for me to examine.....but you don't, because there is none, in 47 years, not one. It was directly tied to Oswald, it was his rifle. SO you can whine and cry all you want, but your boy looks guilty all day. Mike I don't say Oswald is innocent or has no connection to the rifle. You're imagining things again. I don't say all the things that your imaginary "CT Communtiy" says, all I ask for is that someone who claims to be an objective crime scene investigator be one. I just wanted to make sure that you really aren't the objective ballistics expert you try to come across as, because if you try to put Oswald behind the trigger of that rifle you really are just a pigheaded lone nutt hack wearing blinders. I offered you the altertaive of discussing the Sixth Floor Sniper by calling him that - the one who wore a white shirt opened at the colar, had a pattern bald spot on the top of his head, stuck around for four to five minutes after the last shot and moved the Sniper's Nest Boxes around, the guy who wasn't Oswald. But by insisting that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper you call your own bluff. Bill Kelly OK How about I slow down and try this again. What does an evaluation of the rifle scope and its accuracy have to do with Oswald? Perhaps rephrasing it will help it stick a bit better? My articles address the CT Community and its claims that the Carcano was an inoperable inaccurate piece of junk, what the heck does that have to do with Oswald? BK: What does it have to do with Oswald? Why bother to address a mythical "CT Community" and its bogus claims when we can address what we already have that has been entered into evidence? Why confuse the issues with junk that we both know to be BS? Because you don't want to address the evidence, you, like DVP and McAdams and Bugliosi, must address the BS rather than the real deal. I would offer that if the community is this desperate to lie about the rifle, then how far will it go? BK: There is no community and there is no lie - there is just the facts and the evidence, which you are not apparently interested in since you are so obsessed with the mythical CT communty BS and not reality. How can you say that Oswald was the patsy, and then claim that you believe he may not be innocent? How exactly does that work Bill, is that like being a little pregnant? BK: I know its too difficult for you to comprehen, but the evidence and eyewitness testimony indicates Oswald has an alibi and didn't have a motive, and all of the primary evidence, including the rifle and bullets were set up to frame him as the Patsy, as he claimed to be. You want to believe that he was the shooter, okay, then follow Ozzie the Rabbit until you catch him, and then you're game is up, you got your man. Those who know that Oswald wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper can go on and try to learn out who that guy really was. BK I might also add Bill that your claim of: I just wanted to make sure that you really aren't the objective ballistics expert you try to come across as Is ridiculous, my analysis involves hard numbers and facts, its difficult to say that 2+2 does not equal 4 because I am not objective lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted June 18, 2010 Author Share Posted June 18, 2010 (edited) BK: I know its too difficult for you to comprehen, but the evidence and eyewitness testimony indicates Oswald has an alibi and didn't have a motive, and all of the primary evidence, including the rifle and bullets were set up to frame him as the Patsy, as he claimed to be. You want to believe that he was the shooter, okay, then follow Ozzie the Rabbit until you catch him, and then you're game is up, you got your man. Those who know that Oswald wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper can go on and try to learn out who that guy really was. Oswald has little influence on the examination of the rifle and ammo Bill, that was the point, you apparently missed. The point of my examining the rifle and ammo was do disprove the CT claims that it was junk...so for the third time...what does that have to do with Oswald? Can you comprehen (sic) that? Of course then you are contending that all the ballistic evidence is a plant and that the SS hid the fragments in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt? Come on Bill, time for a reality check, that Carcano was the weapon, and the only weapon used. Id love to hear your "Oswald Alibi" though! I bet it revolves around one single witness and one that was never before the WC...... Edited June 18, 2010 by Mike Williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 BK: I know its too difficult for you to comprehen, but the evidence and eyewitness testimony indicates Oswald has an alibi and didn't have a motive, and all of the primary evidence, including the rifle and bullets were set up to frame him as the Patsy, as he claimed to be. You want to believe that he was the shooter, okay, then follow Ozzie the Rabbit until you catch him, and then you're game is up, you got your man. Those who know that Oswald wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper can go on and try to learn out who that guy really was. Oswald has little influence on the examination of the rifle and ammo Bill, that was the point, you apparently missed. The point of my examining the rifle and ammo was do disprove the CT claims that it was junk...so for the third time...what does that have to do with Oswald? Can you comprehen (sic) that? Of course then you are contending that all the ballistic evidence is a plant and that the SS hid the fragments in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt? Come on Bill, time for a reality check, that Carcano was the weapon, and the only weapon used. Id love to hear your "Oswald Alibi" though! I bet it revolves around one single witness and one that was never before the WC...... Wrong again, Mike. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13779 If you believe Baker and Truly crossed paths with Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at 12:31.30 pm, T plus one to two minutes, and Baker saw Oswald in the closed west door window and Truly ahead of him didn't, then Oswald didn't walk through that door, didn't run down the steps and was on the second or first floor at the time of the assassination. Also read Michael Roffman's Presumed Guilty, a primer. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGBkIntro.html http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html In addition, if Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper and did ditch the rifle and run down the stairs fast enough to cross paths with Baker and Truly, he would have had to pass Doughery by the sixth floor elevator and the two secretaries who walkd down the steps from the forth floor, and he didn't. So that's five witnesses. Then there's Brennen and Amos, who said the man with the rifle in the window drew back and stood there for a moment, and wasn't in a hurry, and then there's the court clerk from across the street who saw a man in the Sniper's Next window four minutes after the last shot. So if that wasn't Oswald and it wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, who was it? That's eight witness who exonerate Oswald from being the Sixth Floor Sniper. He wasn't there, he didn't do it. Somebody was there, and somebody did do it though. A man, a man with a white shirt, open at the colar, with a pattern baldness at the top of his head, somebody who had an excuse to be in the building and somone who knew that they could take their time and waltz right out of there. And I didn't contend and do not contend that "all the ballistic evidence is a plant and the SS hid fragment in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt." What happened in the Secret Service garage after the limo was returned there is a matter of record, and the visit there by the FBI (Orrin Bartlett) and SS agents who discovered the bullet fragments there is extremely significant, and the DNA evidence on one of the fragments should be studied further. The only thing grotesque about it is your misperception and false description of it. And Mike, your smart for not allowing anyone to post remarks on your ballistics web site so you don't have to put up with anyone tryng to correct your false assumptions. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted June 18, 2010 Author Share Posted June 18, 2010 BK: I know its too difficult for you to comprehen, but the evidence and eyewitness testimony indicates Oswald has an alibi and didn't have a motive, and all of the primary evidence, including the rifle and bullets were set up to frame him as the Patsy, as he claimed to be. You want to believe that he was the shooter, okay, then follow Ozzie the Rabbit until you catch him, and then you're game is up, you got your man. Those who know that Oswald wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper can go on and try to learn out who that guy really was. Oswald has little influence on the examination of the rifle and ammo Bill, that was the point, you apparently missed. The point of my examining the rifle and ammo was do disprove the CT claims that it was junk...so for the third time...what does that have to do with Oswald? Can you comprehen (sic) that? Of course then you are contending that all the ballistic evidence is a plant and that the SS hid the fragments in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt? Come on Bill, time for a reality check, that Carcano was the weapon, and the only weapon used. Id love to hear your "Oswald Alibi" though! I bet it revolves around one single witness and one that was never before the WC...... Wrong again, Mike. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13779 If you believe Baker and Truly crossed paths with Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at 12:31.30 pm, T plus one to two minutes, and Baker saw Oswald in the closed west door window and Truly ahead of him didn't, then Oswald didn't walk through that door, didn't run down the steps and was on the second or first floor at the time of the assassination. Also read Michael Roffman's Presumed Guilty, a primer. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGBkIntro.html http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html In addition, if Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper and did ditch the rifle and run down the stairs fast enough to cross paths with Baker and Truly, he would have had to pass Doughery by the sixth floor elevator and the two secretaries who walkd down the steps from the forth floor, and he didn't. So that's five witnesses. Then there's Brennen and Amos, who said the man with the rifle in the window drew back and stood there for a moment, and wasn't in a hurry, and then there's the court clerk from across the street who saw a man in the Sniper's Next window four minutes after the last shot. So if that wasn't Oswald and it wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, who was it? That's eight witness who exonerate Oswald from being the Sixth Floor Sniper. He wasn't there, he didn't do it. Somebody was there, and somebody did do it though. A man, a man with a white shirt, open at the colar, with a pattern baldness at the top of his head, somebody who had an excuse to be in the building and somone who knew that they could take their time and waltz right out of there. And I didn't contend and do not contend that "all the ballistic evidence is a plant and the SS hid fragment in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt." What happened in the Secret Service garage after the limo was returned there is a matter of record, and the visit there by the FBI (Orrin Bartlett) and SS agents who discovered the bullet fragments there is extremely significant, and the DNA evidence on one of the fragments should be studied further. The only thing grotesque about it is your misperception and false description of it. And Mike, your smart for not allowing anyone to post remarks on your ballistics web site so you don't have to put up with anyone tryng to correct your false assumptions. BK Bill, Frankly the reason I dont have comments, is because I dont know how to put them on there LOL. Im learning HTML and its slow going, but I think all in all, Its going well. As for my false assumptions, you can fire away anytime you like, and prove me wrong about anything you like, just please cite the article in your remarks, and we can go from there. I really dont think you wish to get into a ballistic debate with me.....but if you insist I am as always, at your service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 BK: I know its too difficult for you to comprehen, but the evidence and eyewitness testimony indicates Oswald has an alibi and didn't have a motive, and all of the primary evidence, including the rifle and bullets were set up to frame him as the Patsy, as he claimed to be. You want to believe that he was the shooter, okay, then follow Ozzie the Rabbit until you catch him, and then you're game is up, you got your man. Those who know that Oswald wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper can go on and try to learn out who that guy really was. Oswald has little influence on the examination of the rifle and ammo Bill, that was the point, you apparently missed. The point of my examining the rifle and ammo was do disprove the CT claims that it was junk...so for the third time...what does that have to do with Oswald? Can you comprehen (sic) that? Of course then you are contending that all the ballistic evidence is a plant and that the SS hid the fragments in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt? Come on Bill, time for a reality check, that Carcano was the weapon, and the only weapon used. Id love to hear your "Oswald Alibi" though! I bet it revolves around one single witness and one that was never before the WC...... Wrong again, Mike. http://educationforu...showtopic=13779 If you believe Baker and Truly crossed paths with Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at 12:31.30 pm, T plus one to two minutes, and Baker saw Oswald in the closed west door window and Truly ahead of him didn't, then Oswald didn't walk through that door, didn't run down the steps and was on the second or first floor at the time of the assassination. Also read Michael Roffman's Presumed Guilty, a primer. http://www.ratical.o.../PGBkIntro.html http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html In addition, if Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper and did ditch the rifle and run down the stairs fast enough to cross paths with Baker and Truly, he would have had to pass Doughery by the sixth floor elevator and the two secretaries who walkd down the steps from the forth floor, and he didn't. So that's five witnesses. Then there's Brennen and Amos, who said the man with the rifle in the window drew back and stood there for a moment, and wasn't in a hurry, and then there's the court clerk from across the street who saw a man in the Sniper's Next window four minutes after the last shot. So if that wasn't Oswald and it wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, who was it? That's eight witness who exonerate Oswald from being the Sixth Floor Sniper. He wasn't there, he didn't do it. Somebody was there, and somebody did do it though. A man, a man with a white shirt, open at the colar, with a pattern baldness at the top of his head, somebody who had an excuse to be in the building and somone who knew that they could take their time and waltz right out of there. And I didn't contend and do not contend that "all the ballistic evidence is a plant and the SS hid fragment in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt." What happened in the Secret Service garage after the limo was returned there is a matter of record, and the visit there by the FBI (Orrin Bartlett) and SS agents who discovered the bullet fragments there is extremely significant, and the DNA evidence on one of the fragments should be studied further. The only thing grotesque about it is your misperception and false description of it. And Mike, your smart for not allowing anyone to post remarks on your ballistics web site so you don't have to put up with anyone tryng to correct your false assumptions. BK Bill, Frankly the reason I dont have comments, is because I dont know how to put them on there LOL. Im learning HTML and its slow going, but I think all in all, Its going well. As for my false assumptions, you can fire away anytime you like, and prove me wrong about anything you like, just please cite the article in your remarks, and we can go from there. I really dont think you wish to get into a ballistic debate with me.....but if you insist I am as always, at your service. I don't have a problem with your ballistics Mike, I have a problem with your false assumption that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper. Now if you can get around the problems addressed by the eight witnesses I give you, and convince me that Oswald was the shooter, then there's no problem. But if you insist that Oswald was your shooter, then everything else you say is BS. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted June 18, 2010 Author Share Posted June 18, 2010 BK: I know its too difficult for you to comprehen, but the evidence and eyewitness testimony indicates Oswald has an alibi and didn't have a motive, and all of the primary evidence, including the rifle and bullets were set up to frame him as the Patsy, as he claimed to be. You want to believe that he was the shooter, okay, then follow Ozzie the Rabbit until you catch him, and then you're game is up, you got your man. Those who know that Oswald wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper can go on and try to learn out who that guy really was. Oswald has little influence on the examination of the rifle and ammo Bill, that was the point, you apparently missed. The point of my examining the rifle and ammo was do disprove the CT claims that it was junk...so for the third time...what does that have to do with Oswald? Can you comprehen (sic) that? Of course then you are contending that all the ballistic evidence is a plant and that the SS hid the fragments in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt? Come on Bill, time for a reality check, that Carcano was the weapon, and the only weapon used. Id love to hear your "Oswald Alibi" though! I bet it revolves around one single witness and one that was never before the WC...... Wrong again, Mike. http://educationforu...showtopic=13779 If you believe Baker and Truly crossed paths with Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at 12:31.30 pm, T plus one to two minutes, and Baker saw Oswald in the closed west door window and Truly ahead of him didn't, then Oswald didn't walk through that door, didn't run down the steps and was on the second or first floor at the time of the assassination. Also read Michael Roffman's Presumed Guilty, a primer. http://www.ratical.o.../PGBkIntro.html http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html In addition, if Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper and did ditch the rifle and run down the stairs fast enough to cross paths with Baker and Truly, he would have had to pass Doughery by the sixth floor elevator and the two secretaries who walkd down the steps from the forth floor, and he didn't. So that's five witnesses. Then there's Brennen and Amos, who said the man with the rifle in the window drew back and stood there for a moment, and wasn't in a hurry, and then there's the court clerk from across the street who saw a man in the Sniper's Next window four minutes after the last shot. So if that wasn't Oswald and it wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, who was it? That's eight witness who exonerate Oswald from being the Sixth Floor Sniper. He wasn't there, he didn't do it. Somebody was there, and somebody did do it though. A man, a man with a white shirt, open at the colar, with a pattern baldness at the top of his head, somebody who had an excuse to be in the building and somone who knew that they could take their time and waltz right out of there. And I didn't contend and do not contend that "all the ballistic evidence is a plant and the SS hid fragment in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt." What happened in the Secret Service garage after the limo was returned there is a matter of record, and the visit there by the FBI (Orrin Bartlett) and SS agents who discovered the bullet fragments there is extremely significant, and the DNA evidence on one of the fragments should be studied further. The only thing grotesque about it is your misperception and false description of it. And Mike, your smart for not allowing anyone to post remarks on your ballistics web site so you don't have to put up with anyone tryng to correct your false assumptions. BK Bill, Frankly the reason I dont have comments, is because I dont know how to put them on there LOL. Im learning HTML and its slow going, but I think all in all, Its going well. As for my false assumptions, you can fire away anytime you like, and prove me wrong about anything you like, just please cite the article in your remarks, and we can go from there. I really dont think you wish to get into a ballistic debate with me.....but if you insist I am as always, at your service. I don't have a problem with your ballistics Mike, I have a problem with your false assumption that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper. Now if you can get around the problems addressed by the eight witnesses I give you, and convince me that Oswald was the shooter, then there's no problem. But if you insist that Oswald was your shooter, then everything else you say is BS. BK So if I tell you 2+2=4 and Oswald was the killer, then 2+2=4 is no longer true?Cant beat the CT logic lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 BK: I know its too difficult for you to comprehen, but the evidence and eyewitness testimony indicates Oswald has an alibi and didn't have a motive, and all of the primary evidence, including the rifle and bullets were set up to frame him as the Patsy, as he claimed to be. You want to believe that he was the shooter, okay, then follow Ozzie the Rabbit until you catch him, and then you're game is up, you got your man. Those who know that Oswald wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper can go on and try to learn out who that guy really was. Oswald has little influence on the examination of the rifle and ammo Bill, that was the point, you apparently missed. The point of my examining the rifle and ammo was do disprove the CT claims that it was junk...so for the third time...what does that have to do with Oswald? Can you comprehen (sic) that? Of course then you are contending that all the ballistic evidence is a plant and that the SS hid the fragments in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt? Come on Bill, time for a reality check, that Carcano was the weapon, and the only weapon used. Id love to hear your "Oswald Alibi" though! I bet it revolves around one single witness and one that was never before the WC...... Wrong again, Mike. http://educationforu...showtopic=13779 If you believe Baker and Truly crossed paths with Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at 12:31.30 pm, T plus one to two minutes, and Baker saw Oswald in the closed west door window and Truly ahead of him didn't, then Oswald didn't walk through that door, didn't run down the steps and was on the second or first floor at the time of the assassination. Also read Michael Roffman's Presumed Guilty, a primer. http://www.ratical.o.../PGBkIntro.html http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html In addition, if Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper and did ditch the rifle and run down the stairs fast enough to cross paths with Baker and Truly, he would have had to pass Doughery by the sixth floor elevator and the two secretaries who walkd down the steps from the forth floor, and he didn't. So that's five witnesses. Then there's Brennen and Amos, who said the man with the rifle in the window drew back and stood there for a moment, and wasn't in a hurry, and then there's the court clerk from across the street who saw a man in the Sniper's Next window four minutes after the last shot. So if that wasn't Oswald and it wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, who was it? That's eight witness who exonerate Oswald from being the Sixth Floor Sniper. He wasn't there, he didn't do it. Somebody was there, and somebody did do it though. A man, a man with a white shirt, open at the colar, with a pattern baldness at the top of his head, somebody who had an excuse to be in the building and somone who knew that they could take their time and waltz right out of there. And I didn't contend and do not contend that "all the ballistic evidence is a plant and the SS hid fragment in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt." What happened in the Secret Service garage after the limo was returned there is a matter of record, and the visit there by the FBI (Orrin Bartlett) and SS agents who discovered the bullet fragments there is extremely significant, and the DNA evidence on one of the fragments should be studied further. The only thing grotesque about it is your misperception and false description of it. And Mike, your smart for not allowing anyone to post remarks on your ballistics web site so you don't have to put up with anyone tryng to correct your false assumptions. BK Bill, Frankly the reason I dont have comments, is because I dont know how to put them on there LOL. Im learning HTML and its slow going, but I think all in all, Its going well. As for my false assumptions, you can fire away anytime you like, and prove me wrong about anything you like, just please cite the article in your remarks, and we can go from there. I really dont think you wish to get into a ballistic debate with me.....but if you insist I am as always, at your service. I don't have a problem with your ballistics Mike, I have a problem with your false assumption that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper. Now if you can get around the problems addressed by the eight witnesses I give you, and convince me that Oswald was the shooter, then there's no problem. But if you insist that Oswald was your shooter, then everything else you say is BS. BK So if I tell you 2+2=4 and Oswald was the killer, then 2+2=4 is no longer true?Cant beat the CT logic lol You can tell me whatever you want but I'm not going to believe it if you insist on Oswald being the Shooter. And you keep insisting on bringing up CT bullxxxx. Why do you have to mention CTs in every post? I hate Conspiracy Theorists more than you, especially those who claim the Mafia did it. But now I am beginning to dislike those who claim to be Special Expert Witnesses, which you claim to be in ballistics, who go out of their area of expertise and try to pin the tail on the wrong donkey. No, ordering the rifle from a mail order house with an alias and having it delivered to a po box that no po employee remembers handling and the receipt record having been destroyed, when you can buy the same rifle with no id at any department store in Dallas, does not equal 4. It makes no sense at all, except to create a false trail. You want to be a ballistics expert then don't speculate on who is pulling the trigger. Leave the motive to other more qualified experts. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now