Rifle Condition Part 3 "Accuracy" at JFKBallistics

[Mike Williams]

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

Bill,

Care to show me where I ever claimed to be a "special expert witness"?

Can you CT'ers ever get anything right?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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

Bill,

Care to show me where I ever claimed to be a "special expert witness"?

Can you CT'ers ever get anything right?

Mike;

Send me your mailing address and I will send to you the forensic; ballistic; pathological; & physical facts related to the first shot/aka CE399.

Tom Purvis

109 Radcliff Drive

Lucedale, MS 39452

P.S. For Gary Mack. Same goes for you/the Sixth Floor Museum as well.

[David Williams]

The bullet fragments

HOUSTON (AP) - New testing on the type of ammunition used in the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy raises questions about whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, according to a study by researchers at Texas A&M University.

Lead research Cliff Spiegelman stressed, however, that the research doesn't necessarily support conspiracy theorists who for decades have doubted Oswald was the lone gunman.

''We're not saying there was a conspiracy. All we're saying is the evidence that was presented as a slam dunk for a single shooter is not a slam dunk,'' said Spiegelman, a Texas A&M statistics professor and an expert in bullet-lead analysis.

The Warren Commission concluded in 1964 that Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy's motorcade from the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. The U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations agreed in 1979 and found that the two bullets that hit Kennedy came from Oswald's rifle.

The committee's findings were based in part on the testimony of former chemist Vincent Guinn, who said recovered fragments came from only two bullets. Guinn testified that the bullets Oswald used, Western-Winchester Cartridge Co. Mannlicher-Carcano bullets, were unique and that it would be possible to distinguish one from another even if they both came from the same box.

But Spiegelman and his fellow researchers, who tested 30 of the same type of bullets, found that fragments were not nearly so rare and that bullets within the same box could match one another. One of the test bullets also matched one or more of the assassination fragments.

''This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets,'' the researchers wrote in a paper detailing their study, set to be published later this year by the journal ''Annals of Applied Statistics.'' The study is available on the journal's Web site.

''If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald,'' they wrote.

The bullets Spiegelman's team used were from two of only four lots ever produced of the ammunition. The researchers were able to test for more elements than Guinn and used better quality control techniques, Spiegelman said.

" G. Robert Blakey conceded that Guinn's theory, which Blakey had promoted to the HSCA, has been shown to be nothing more than "Junk Science."

Even the FBI dont use Neutron Activation Analysis, because it is not admissable in courts of law.

Dave

[David Williams]

Agreed Jim

Dave