Mike Williams Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 (edited) From the lancer forums: >DJ- > >Curious, what is the argument over? Hathcock most surely made >the comments attributed to him! Are they saying LHO pulled off >a "Lottery Shot", One in a 100 Million? > >Randy http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6778&hl=hathcock&st=0 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15944&hl=hathcock&st=15 Between Purvis and Williams they try to discount everything to the point of claiming that Hathcock was not "formally" trained!! DJ David Please show me where I have at any point in time discredited Carlos Hathcock. I certainly have not, and ask that you edit your post to address your mistake. To be correct I said Craig Roberts was never trained, not Carlos Hathcock. Will you ever get even the slightest bit of information correct? No wonder you have such difficulty with the evidence, you can not even manage to keep simple things straight. Get it fixed. Edited June 19, 2010 by Mike Williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 From the lancer forums: >DJ- > >Curious, what is the argument over? Hathcock most surely made >the comments attributed to him! Are they saying LHO pulled off >a "Lottery Shot", One in a 100 Million? > >Randy http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6778&hl=hathcock&st=0 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15944&hl=hathcock&st=15 Between Purvis and Williams they try to discount everything to the point of claiming that Hathcock was not "formally" trained!! DJ David Please show me where I have at any point in time discredited Carlos Hathcock. I certainly have not, and ask that you edit your post to address your mistake. To be correct I said Craig Roberts was never trained, not Carlos Hathcock. Mike - once again you twist words and make accusation just to hear yourself speak. You say right below, specifically, that "Hathcock was not a trained sniper, by official terms" Does that not mean you are saying he was not "formally" trained as I posted? You suppose he received no formal sniper training at all? Was never formally taught any of the skills for being a sniper beyond his uncanny ability to shoot over long distance...? that's plan absurd. I did not post that you tried to DISCREDIT Hathcock at all... and it is obvious from the post you admire the guy, who wouldn't... The manner inwhich you discuss topics and attack forum members is the problem... John is much more forgiving here than Deb is at Lancer... another forum member over there was recently heavily "edited" for doing exactly what you do in most every one of your posts... so please... "A sniper is a highly trained marksman who shoots targets from concealed positions or distances exceeding the capabilities of regular personnel. Snipers typically have specialized training and distinct high-precision rifles." http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-stories/heroes/carloshathcock.asp This achievement led to his being sought out in Vietnam in 1966 to be part of a newly established sniper program. After his training was completed Carlos began his new assignment. Operating from Hill 55, a position 35 miles South-West of Da Nang, Hathcock and his fellow Marine snipers renewed a Marine tactic which had been born in the islands of the Pacific in World War II. Within a short period of time the effects of the Marine snipers could be felt around Hill 55. Carlos rapidly ran up a toll on the enemy that would eventually lead to a bounty being placed on his head by the NVA. http://www.scribd.com/doc/12890629/Sniper-Carlos-Hathcock Here they write about his training in Hawaii and ultimately the training he helped create after Vietnam.[/b] Mike Williams, on May 16 2010, 12:43 PM, said: Greg, Not at all so please do not misunderstand. I was and am in effect saying the same thing you are. Roberts has certainly made his place in this field, and I do not mean to imply that he has not. Further, if we are to look at this, Carlos Hathcock was not a trained sniper, by official terms, and yet he was the man who laid the foundation for all such schooling in the Marine Corp! If you think about it it is quite amazing. I would also add that there are many civilians with the knowledge and experience to render such opinions, that have never served in the military. Hence we need to give weight based on the substance of what one says, and not just their official accolades. I think when evaluating an opinion we need to take all things into consideration Mike also wrote:I also have never heard of a recreation at Quantico and certainly not one that Hathcock took part in Other than not "hearing" about it, have you done ANYTHING to check it out? Makes sense that the top sniper in the world, also a Quantico instructor, would have a little something to say about the shots fired... guess you might have to actually do a little research... Will you ever get even the slightest bit of information correct? No wonder you have such difficulty with the evidence, you can not even manage to keep simple things straight. Get it fixed. Nothing to fix Mikey... you posted it and than say you didn't... Go find something else to do already, nobody seems to be listening to you. bu bye now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted June 20, 2010 Author Share Posted June 20, 2010 From the lancer forums: >DJ- > >Curious, what is the argument over? Hathcock most surely made >the comments attributed to him! Are they saying LHO pulled off >a "Lottery Shot", One in a 100 Million? > >Randy http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6778&hl=hathcock&st=0 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15944&hl=hathcock&st=15 Between Purvis and Williams they try to discount everything to the point of claiming that Hathcock was not "formally" trained!! DJ David Please show me where I have at any point in time discredited Carlos Hathcock. I certainly have not, and ask that you edit your post to address your mistake. To be correct I said Craig Roberts was never trained, not Carlos Hathcock. Mike - once again you twist words and make accusation just to hear yourself speak. You say right below, specifically, that "Hathcock was not a trained sniper, by official terms" Does that not mean you are saying he was not "formally" trained as I posted? You suppose he received no formal sniper training at all? Was never formally taught any of the skills for being a sniper beyond his uncanny ability to shoot over long distance...? that's plan absurd. I did not post that you tried to DISCREDIT Hathcock at all... and it is obvious from the post you admire the guy, who wouldn't... The manner inwhich you discuss topics and attack forum members is the problem... John is much more forgiving here than Deb is at Lancer... another forum member over there was recently heavily "edited" for doing exactly what you do in most every one of your posts... so please... "A sniper is a highly trained marksman who shoots targets from concealed positions or distances exceeding the capabilities of regular personnel. Snipers typically have specialized training and distinct high-precision rifles." http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-stories/heroes/carloshathcock.asp This achievement led to his being sought out in Vietnam in 1966 to be part of a newly established sniper program. After his training was completed Carlos began his new assignment. Operating from Hill 55, a position 35 miles South-West of Da Nang, Hathcock and his fellow Marine snipers renewed a Marine tactic which had been born in the islands of the Pacific in World War II. Within a short period of time the effects of the Marine snipers could be felt around Hill 55. Carlos rapidly ran up a toll on the enemy that would eventually lead to a bounty being placed on his head by the NVA. http://www.scribd.com/doc/12890629/Sniper-Carlos-Hathcock Here they write about his training in Hawaii and ultimately the training he helped create after Vietnam.[/b] Mike Williams, on May 16 2010, 12:43 PM, said: Greg, Not at all so please do not misunderstand. I was and am in effect saying the same thing you are. Roberts has certainly made his place in this field, and I do not mean to imply that he has not. Further, if we are to look at this, Carlos Hathcock was not a trained sniper, by official terms, and yet he was the man who laid the foundation for all such schooling in the Marine Corp! If you think about it it is quite amazing. I would also add that there are many civilians with the knowledge and experience to render such opinions, that have never served in the military. Hence we need to give weight based on the substance of what one says, and not just their official accolades. I think when evaluating an opinion we need to take all things into consideration Mike also wrote:I also have never heard of a recreation at Quantico and certainly not one that Hathcock took part in Other than not "hearing" about it, have you done ANYTHING to check it out? Makes sense that the top sniper in the world, also a Quantico instructor, would have a little something to say about the shots fired... guess you might have to actually do a little research... Will you ever get even the slightest bit of information correct? No wonder you have such difficulty with the evidence, you can not even manage to keep simple things straight. Get it fixed. Nothing to fix Mikey... you posted it and than say you didn't... Go find something else to do already, nobody seems to be listening to you. bu bye now David, My apologies, for not being more clear. At the time that Carlos went back to Vietnam, in 1966 there was no official Sniper program in place, the very reason he was contacted was to be a part of building that program. The "after his training" is simply referring to going through the indoctrination that all Marines going over seas go through. You are making the assumption here that this is sniper training and it is not. If you would like I would be happy to loan you either of my books on the topic, both written by Charles Henderson. I only ask that you please return them when you finish reading them. Carlos trained as a member of the cherry point rifle team early in his career and even placed 1st at the Camp Perry Ohio 1000 yard shooting event known in the shooting world as the Wibledon cup. "Before deploying to Vietnam, Hathcock had won many shooting championships.[5] In 1966 Hathcock started his deployment in Vietnam as an MP and later became a sniper after Captain Edward J. Land Jr. pushed the Marines into raising snipers in every platoon. Land later recruited Marines who had set their own records in sharpshooting; he quickly found Hathcock, who had won the Wimbledon Cup, the most prestigious prize for long-range shooting, at Camp Perry in 1965.[5]" As we can see from the above quote, each platoon was encouraged to "raise snipers". At this time there was no "sniper program" Snipers were simply designated such because of ability and that was that. Do you really think that the Marine Corp would have made Hathcock an MP after winning the cup? Of course not. In no way do my words try to discredit Hathcock at all, however, I suppose there was no way for you to have known that. SO my apologies for jumping on your back like that. As far as a Quantico recreation, I have looked high and low for info on this, to no avail. I thought at one time there was one reference, during one of the tests, but seem to have been mistaken in that I can not find the source of that quote. So anyhow again, sorry for jumping on you like that.....and to think we were off on a better foot being all civil and stuff lol. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 Thamks for that post Mike... I really have quite a respect for you and your sniper's background as well your ballistic knowledge... and I really never minded being dis-agreed with or having a heated exchange... We started out with you asking me to substantiate a number of conclusions I had made, I tried to and then it got ugly. I also acknowledge that you were not discrediting him at all and in fact saw you were praising him... after all that had gone on abck and forth with us I simply used you and Purvis as "examples" on the other Lancer forum of arguing for what seemed like arguing sake. It seems everyday I read yet another review or article that challenges everything I think I know and leads me in another direction... A fine example being DiEugenio's review of Horne and critique of Lifton. I need to refrain from comclusions is the thing - I guess... as nothing ever seems completely true one way or the other... The Quantico thing would have to be shared, imo, from someone who was there - I doubt they would have kept record of it or if they did.. how hard would THAT be to unearth! I wonder if Hathcock was ever asked about it - and replied. Now I may be wrong about the MC yet I think there is more proof that the rifle in evidence is very questionable then about it's level of reliability. Add to this all the interwoven story line LHO was involved within and almost anything is possible EXCEPT him be a LONE anything. In any case.. I look forward to a more peaceful co-existance on this Forum as I enjoy reading the offerings of what I see as the best and brightest in this field of research... If we all could leave the door slightly ajar for the possibilities we simply do not have the information to defend or refute properly, I think we all can conitnue to learn a thing or two with each visit here. Thanks for extending the olive branch.. Sincerely, DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 A question for you then Mike... Wouldn't they have had to train Carlos in all the other aspects of being a sniper, beyond shooting... or was that basic training for all? DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted June 21, 2010 Author Share Posted June 21, 2010 (edited) A question for you then Mike... Wouldn't they have had to train Carlos in all the other aspects of being a sniper, beyond shooting... or was that basic training for all? DJ David, And I thank you in return. Sometimes I guess good folks can just get off on the wrong foot, and well I need to be a bit less harsh, that's just always been my way, which certainly does not mean its the right way. Now on the Quantico issue. Man I think while I was there I heard just about every story about Carlos imaginable. His visits to the range often really boosted it, and after awhile you just hear repeats. I never in all my time there ever yeard of a recreation. I have made a few phone calls, and of course this has yielded no new info. My next course of action might be to call Carlos wife Joe. I generally call her once or twice a year. Perhaps she would have a memory of Carlos saying something about that. I'm really on a cold trail, and it is really the only thing I can think of to try next. As for Carlos training. He would have been really on the learn as you burn edge. He was teaching while he was developing the program. In the Marine Corp all men are riflemen. Its taught at basic training. However then you go to AIT, or advanced infantry training, if you are going to have an infantry MOS. There is much more field craft taught here than basic. You also receive training in your MOS (Military occupational specialty) mortars, machine gunners, whatever. If one would go to be a Sniper now, you would likely end up at the school in Quantico, advanced field craft the .308 and .50 cal rifles etc. Its a whole new world. Snipers hunt alone or in teams, strategy and tactics are completely different for them. Carlos, and his accomplishments are the heart and soul of the program. Interesting in that he developed the teaching techniques by actually doing them! I do not know the level of training others would have given him, but I can sure attest to the amount he contributed to all of us. Marksmanship was his game, and being a southern boy, he had a knack for the field I suppose. If you can not tell, I have a soft spot for this guy. He was a little guy with a huge presence. Anyhow I don't know if that answers you at all, but the long and the short is that he would have taught by experience far more than he learned. Here is the thing that gets me about Roberts alleged citation of Hathcock. I have been to the plaza and looked at the shots. I can not in any stretch of the imagination consider them difficult. I can not by any means even conceive of how Carlos would have considered them difficult, and I certainly cant imagine him saying he "couldn't do" anything involving a rifle. I know one thing for sure, I would have never told him I "could not do" something. He would not tolerate that. Remember this is a man who took a scope and mounted it on a M2 machine gun and hit a moving target at 2500 yards with a single shot. This is the M2 Ill let you know if I find anything further. Best to you David, Mike Edited June 21, 2010 by Mike Williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 (edited) Here is the thing that gets me about Roberts alleged citation of Hathcock. I have been to the plaza and looked at the shots. I can not in any stretch of the imagination consider them difficult. I can not by any means even conceive of how Carlos would have considered them difficult, and I certainly cant imagine him saying he "couldn't do" anything involving a rifle. I know one thing for sure, I would have never told him I "could not do" something. He would not tolerate that. That makes a lot of sense Mike... Alot. My stumbling block is that Oswald was not a "day to day" sniper who worked his craft, oiled his rifle, etc... and if he was... how/why in the world would he use a 20 year old rifle with 20 year old ammunition? If the rifle is "enough to get it done" I'd have to take your word yet so many have made so much about the rifle - not to even begin mentioning how it got ther, whenit was assembled, how Oswald did not get any fingerprints on it, how a brass clip would not have his fingerprints on them, why it's not the same rifle as was ordered or even delivered... see my point? If you could get me to the point where that rifle is in his hands at that moment in time, then maybe. My even bigger concern was that Oswald, if not connected some how, would have to be in position much earlier than to just stroll to the window between 12:20 and 12:30 and do what he was supposed to do.... would a decent sniper leave so much to chance... and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Now add this to the overwhelming evidence that shots were "also" fired from the front and there has to be more than 1 shooter and 3 shots, just has to. I started a pet project in an excel spreadsheet that is trying to ID all the players on the vertical axis and the time on the horizontal - and thereby trace what the evidence says for eachof these "players" at each of teh crucial moments starting that morning when a second Oswald is seen at the Jiffy Mart while we all know Lee was at work. Armstrong makes an interesting argument - yet talk about your way out scenarios... nothing is too strange for the forces that opposed each other in this world it seems. One more more question for you as sniper... how does one of the shots travel so far left and so far high - enough to hit a curb and nick Tague at the overpass... If the shots are not that difficult, a miss of that magnitude seems bizarre, no? and the mark by the manhole cover where the unidentified "agent" picks up a bullet, pockets it and walks off, and finally the witnesses that saw sparks and were told a chot hit the street... I really can dig and get the testimony but I'll hope you can trust me on that one. Finally, given what you've seen of Dealey Plaza... and I was there as well, wouldn't the WEST window make infinitely more sense than the East? Thanks DJ {edit}and PS - sure be nice if you could change the title of the thread... Edited June 21, 2010 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted June 21, 2010 Author Share Posted June 21, 2010 (edited) That makes a lot of sense Mike... Alot. My stumbling block is that Oswald was not a "day to day" sniper who worked his craft, oiled his rifle, etc... and if he was... how/why in the world would he use a 20 year old rifle with 20 year old ammunition? If the rifle is "enough to get it done" I'd have to take your word yet so many have made so much about the rifle - not to even begin mentioning how it got ther, whenit was assembled, how Oswald did not get any fingerprints on it, how a brass clip would not have his fingerprints on them, why it's not the same rifle as was ordered or even delivered... see my point? If you could get me to the point where that rifle is in his hands at that moment in time, then maybe. David, I sure understand where you are coming from. I really think in many instances the old "perception becomes reality" phrase has its place. There has been so much written, incorrectly, about the rifle that eventually it does tend to take on a "fact" based tone. I can address some of your concerns above, but will be the first to admit, I have never run down the money orders etc, so please understand, if I do not address something, it is simply because I don't have enough information on it, not because I wish to hedge any issue. I really do not think that Oswald would have to be a day to day sniper to make these shots, they simply were not that difficult, interesting though is the fact that the closer shots would have been more difficult. I will be posting an article today called "the easiest shot" By Joe Elliot. Its a very good look at the alleged 3 shots and rates their difficulty. In asking about the 20 year old rifle and ammo. I really do not think that Oswald purchased that rifle to kill JFK. I think he simply bought what he could afford, and he was a bit of a thrift with money. I also think we have indications that this was a spontaneous decision by him. I mean how many people would go into something like this with only 4 rounds of ammo? Could this be an indication that he did not have time to acquire more ammo before the event, indicating a rash decision to do the deed? I do not think we can rule out these thoughts. I really see no reason for the rifle to be considered inadequate. It is still a popular hunting round in Europe and is quite well known for deep penetration and its light recoil. Almost the best of both worlds. As for finger prints. Have you ever, in researching something, come across something that just made your jaw drop? I have such an experience when researching the "Rifle Condition" article on my site about the scope. Frazier tells us that the scope was removed for fingerprinting, or at least he thought it was. This seems logical to me, as the scope is mounted on the receiver, and this area is a natural "balance" point of the rifle. What that means to us is that this place on the rifle is an obviously good carry location. If you grab the rifle here, it balances well and can be easily carried. SO to me this was a logical place to disassemble and look for prints. I looked all over for procedures police use for printing rifles, and had little success, what I did find was an article that, as I said, made my jaw drop. Ill include some here for you. "Latent fingerprint examiners generally know that even when cutting edge technology such as cyanoacrylate fuming and laser/forensic light source examination are utilized, successful development of latent prints on firearms is difficult to achieve. In reality, very few identifiable latent prints are found on firearms, a fact that has been discussed in both the literature [1,2,3] and the judicial system [4]. Fingerprint Specialists at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms San Francisco Laboratory Center have had, however, some success in this endeavor1. In the examination of 1,000 firearms from February, 1992, through August, 1995, 114 identifiable latent prints were developed on 93 firearms. Although successful recovery occurred in approximately one of ten firearms, it should be understood that not all identifiable latent prints may have been left by an offender. Some developed latent prints, for example, are subsequently identified as belonging to a person involved in the collection of the evidence2. " So out of 1000 firearms they only found 114 prints, in 93 weapons, and that was with modern technology! All of a sudden the issue that they did not find many prints becomes a bit less significant in the face of this. Here is the link to the original source: Here My even bigger concern was that Oswald, if not connected some how, would have to be in position much earlier than to just stroll to the window between 12:20 and 12:30 and do what he was supposed to do.... would a decent sniper leave so much to chance... and that is just the tip of the iceberg. You know I have given this issue some thought. What seems to strike me is that in the LN scenario, Oswald acted alone. The thing that most do not consider is that he did not have to do this. He could at any time have changed his mind and simply packed up the rifle and moved on. Now I consider that Williams was likely up there eating lunch, and have to consider that if Williams would have stayed up there Oswald may not have acted at all. Possibly the reason Oswald moved into position so late, is that he was waiting for Williams to leave. I do not think we can rule this out. I note that Rowland sees the gunman for less than 30 seconds, in the west windows, and he sees the colored man in the snipers nest or near it, but he never sees them at the same time. It has to be considered that Oswald was up there and was simply hiding until Williams left. I need to look into this a bit more, admittedly. Now add this to the overwhelming evidence that shots were "also" fired from the front and there has to be more than 1 shooter and 3 shots, just has to. This may be the greatest area of debate in the history of the JFK assassination. In my opinion, for what ever that's worth, I see no evidence of a front shot. I am going to be very frank with you about this, the medical evidence is something I struggle to understand. I'm not inclined towards it. However the blood spatter is something I understand very well. Trajectory is also something I understand very well, and these two fundamental physics based concepts are all one needs to rule out a frontal shot, in my opinion. what I really need to do is write an article for my website about this. The forum here limits the number of photos you can put in a post, and this is something that is difficult to express in just text without the aid of graphics. The basis for my opinion revolves around two things. The first is location. We know that JFK had no left side head damage. This is critical in examining a frontal head shot. I have not at any time been able to locate a position, in the front of the limo, that would not have caused left head damage. Perhaps one photo that may get at least the very basic idea of this is from the laser tests. I will include it here. Other positions along this line offer similar results, but again, it would take more graphics to show each of them and prove the point. The other basis for my opinion is the blood spatter. Pat Speer and I have been talking about this lately. Some things we do know abut spatter, is that there are two types with gunshot wounds. Forward spatter, in the direction of the bullet, and Back spatter, which flows back towards the shooter, or the opposite direction of the bullets travel. Pat found a citation that said: " Tom Bevel and Ross M. Gardner, Bloodstain Pattern Analysis with an Introduction to Crime Scene Reconstruction, 2008. "Forward spatter patterns when present tend to be more symmetrical than back spatter patterns. This is probably due to the primary force of the impact being transmitted in the direction of the projectile. Back spatter patterns tend to be less defined..." Pat's contention is that in saying that forward spatter "when present" is an indication that forward spatter is less dense and less obvious, however this is incorrect. The reason Mr Gardner said "when present" is simply because not all gunshot wounds have forward spatter, because not all gunshot wounds exit the target. The "when present" comment has nothing to do with its physical characteristics, and in fact Mr Gardner clears this up for us in Pats quote when he tells us "Back spatter patterns tend to be less defined..." Forward spatter is a very dense cloud of fine, high velocity, blood mist drops. Back spatter is far less defined and more of a spurt than a spray. Please forgive the terms, I simply know no other way to describe it. Back spatter is far less defined, because it is far less dense. In the Zapruder film we see only one dense cloud of fine blood mist, coming out the front of the head, indicating a rear hit. However we also have the statements of Robert Frazier in his Shaw trial testimony. Frazier tells us that the blood and matter was as far forward as the hood ornament and on the outside of the front windshield! Mind you that this was traveling against an 8mph limo speed AND a 13 mph head wind. This is significant. This would be an impossibility for back spatter. I really need to do an article on this as well. Same graphics issues. I started a pet project in an excel spreadsheet that is trying to ID all the players on the vertical axis and the time on the horizontal - and thereby trace what the evidence says for eachof these "players" at each of teh crucial moments starting that morning when a second Oswald is seen at the Jiffy Mart while we all know Lee was at work. Armstrong makes an interesting argument - yet talk about your way out scenarios... nothing is too strange for the forces that opposed each other in this world it seems. LOL I agree with you there. I would love to see this work when you are done, and if I can offer any help with a rifle timeline let me know, Id be glad to give you what I have so far. One more more question for you as sniper... how does one of the shots travel so far left and so far high - enough to hit a curb and nick Tague at the overpass... If the shots are not that difficult, a miss of that magnitude seems bizarre, no? and the mark by the manhole cover where the unidentified "agent" picks up a bullet, pockets it and walks off, and finally the witnesses that saw sparks and were told a chot hit the street... I really can dig and get the testimony but I'll hope you can trust me on that one. Hey I know this testimony as well, so no worries on the citations. The issues I have are varied on this stuff. First the manhole cover has never been tested to prove a gunshot. This makes it almost impossible to comment on without speculation. As for the man pocketing the bullet. Again this is pretty speculative as we really have no evidence of it. I understand there is a video out there where someone claims the man pocketed it then gave it to his son to take to school. Now come on, that's really kind of crazy if you ask me. I mean it's only the most epic murder of the century after all. I agree with you 100% on the oddity of a miss as epic as one would have to be in order to hit the Main St curb. I myself have considered many different things in this regard, and none seem to explain to any satisfaction this issue. Frankly here I have to say at this point, I do not know. I can only speculate. Finally, given what you've seen of Dealey Plaza... and I was there as well, wouldn't the WEST window make infinitely more sense than the East? If my two options were only East or West, I would pick East. Let me explain. In the East window, I can take a shot coming up Houston, I can take a shot right after the tree and have the SS car under the tree and not be in their line of sight, and I have the entire rest of Elm with very little left to right angle. In the West window I have far less time with the target in the straight away position, and almost any other shot is passing left to right, which is far more difficult. I would have undoubtedly picked the East window, if those were my only two options. I really need to do some more work for the website, that may more clearly define my position on some of this stuff, but at least I have offered some kind of explanation for my thinking. I certainly need to do more on the money order and rifle acquisition by Oswald. I need to look into those items more. I concentrate mostly on the physics and ballistics of the shooting, and that takes time to really analyze. I pretty well have that work done, and need to look further, admittedly. Best, Mike P.S. I sure apologize for that David, sincerely. I tried to change it, but do not see that option. Perhaps a Mod can do this for me? How about "Mike Williams jumps the gun?" LOL Edited June 21, 2010 by Mike Williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Quote That makes a lot of sense Mike... Alot. My stumbling block is that Oswald was not a "day to day" sniper who worked his craft, oiled his rifle, etc... and if he was... how/why in the world would he use a 20 year old rifle with 20 year old ammunition? If the rifle is "enough to get it done" I'd have to take your word yet so many have made so much about the rifle - not to even begin mentioning how it got ther, whenit was assembled, how Oswald did not get any fingerprints on it, how a brass clip would not have his fingerprints on them, why it's not the same rifle as was ordered or even delivered... see my point? If you could get me to the point where that rifle is in his hands at that moment in time, then maybe. my reply in bold David, I sure understand where you are coming from. I really think in many instances the old "perception becomes reality" phrase has its place. There has been so much written, incorrectly, about the rifle that eventually it does tend to take on a "fact" based tone. I can address some of your concerns above, but will be the first to admit, I have never run down the money orders etc, so please understand, if I do not address something, it is simply because I don't have enough information on it, not because I wish to hedge any issue. ”Ordering the Rifle”, by Martha Moyer and The Great Carcano Swindle by Bill MacDowall are excellent places to start. I really do not think that Oswald would have to be a day to day sniper to make these shots, they simply were not that difficult, interesting though is the fact that the closer shots would have been more difficult. I will be posting an article today called "the easiest shot" By Joe Elliot. Its a very good look at the alleged 3 shots and rates their difficulty. Look forward to reading it... there is also that little matter of MOST witnesses saying the last 2 shots were virtually on top of one another... not possible with the old bolt action MC In asking about the 20 year old rifle and ammo. I really do not think that Oswald purchased that rifle to kill JFK. there is also quite a bit on the subject of Oswald being involved in an FBI operation to begin curtailing the sale of weapons via mail order. The fact Klein’s would send a rifle to a PO Box was part of the investigation... I do not have the proof in front of m yet that is the gist of the story as I remember it I think he simply bought what he could afford, and he was a bit of a thrift with money. I also think we have indications that this was a spontaneous decision by him. I mean how many people would go into something like this with only 4 rounds of ammo? Could this be an indication that he did not have time to acquire more ammo before the event, indicating a rash decision to do the deed? I do not think we can rule out these thoughts. I really see no reason for the rifle to be considered inadequate. It is still a popular hunting round in Europe and is quite well known for deep penetration and its light recoil. Almost the best of both worlds. I am willing to concede that someone firing that rifle at someone would indeed hurt them very badly... As for finger prints. Have you ever, in researching something, come across something that just made your jaw drop? I have such an experience when researching the "Rifle Condition" article on my site about the scope. Frazier tells us that the scope was removed for fingerprinting, or at least he thought it was. This seems logical to me, as the scope is mounted on the receiver, and this area is a natural "balance" point of the rifle. What that means to us is that this place on the rifle is an obviously good carry location. If you grab the rifle here, it balances well and can be easily carried. SO to me this was a logical place to disassemble and look for prints. I looked all over for procedures police use for printing rifles, and had little success, what I did find was an article that, as I said, made my jaw drop. Ill include some here for you. "Latent fingerprint examiners generally know that even when cutting edge technology such as cyanoacrylate fuming and laser/forensic light source examination are utilized, successful development of latent prints on firearms is difficult to achieve. In reality, very few identifiable latent prints are found on firearms, a fact that has been discussed in both the literature [1,2,3] and the judicial system [4]. Fingerprint Specialists at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms San Francisco Laboratory Center have had, however, some success in this endeavor1. In the examination of 1,000 firearms from February, 1992, through August, 1995, 114 identifiable latent prints were developed on 93 firearms. Although successful recovery occurred in approximately one of ten firearms, it should be understood that not all identifiable latent prints may have been left by an offender. Some developed latent prints, for example, are subsequently identified as belonging to a person involved in the collection of the evidence2. " So out of 1000 firearms they only found 114 prints, in 93 weapons, and that was with modern technology! All of a sudden the issue that they did not find many prints becomes a bit less significant in the face of this. Here is the link to the original source: again, that makes sense to me, yet NOT finding his fingerprints on the rifle, clip, hulls supports him not holding the rifle (in a court of law) – and not the other way around... yes? Here Quote My even bigger concern was that Oswald, if not connected some how, would have to be in position much earlier than to just stroll to the window between 12:20 and 12:30 and do what he was supposed to do.... would a decent sniper leave so much to chance... and that is just the tip of the iceberg. You know I have given this issue some thought. What seems to strike me is that in the LN scenario, Oswald acted alone. The thing that most do not consider is that he did not have to do this. He could at any time have changed his mind and simply packed up the rifle and moved on. Now I consider that Williams was likely up there eating lunch, and have to consider that if Williams would have stayed up there Oswald may not have acted at all. Possibly the reason Oswald moved into position so late, is that he was waiting for Williams to leave. I do not think we can rule this out. I note that Rowland sees the gunman for less than 30 seconds, in the west windows, and he sees the colored man in the snipers nest or near it, but he never sees them at the same time. It has to be considered that Oswald was up there and was simply hiding until Williams left. I need to look into this a bit more, admittedly. Someone had to have rebuilt the rifle is we are to believe he brought it with him, broken down in the Frazier bag – which was too short to hold the rifle, according to those who testified they saw the bag on the back seat and as he walked with it towards the TSBD. Men, and men with rifles were seen at 12:15 ( Ruby Henderson, Arnold Rowland, John Powell, Carolyn Walther... while Carolyn Arnold sees Oswald eating lunch on the 2nd floor at the same time.) I believe I posted my essay on the subject on a different thread... and yes, agreed, a last minute decision would be a Loner decision... yet how did he know the limo hadn’t already passed? Williams hadn’t already left, etc... he needs to know these things for him to plan for and avoid them Quote Now add this to the overwhelming evidence that shots were "also" fired from the front and there has to be more than 1 shooter and 3 shots, just has to. This may be the greatest area of debate in the history of the JFK assassination. In my opinion, for what ever that's worth, I see no evidence of a front shot. I am going to be very frank with you about this, the medical evidence is something I struggle to understand. I'm not inclined towards it. However the blood spatter is something I understand very well. Trajectory is also something I understand very well, and these two fundamental physics based concepts are all one needs to rule out a frontal shot, in my opinion. I believe Sherry Gutierrez’s blood splatter analysis is posted on the JFKLancer website/forum... I am also a bit unsure of the interpretation due to my lack of knowledge of the subject – your presentation would be interesting to see what I really need to do is write an article for my website about this. The forum here limits the number of photos you can put in a post, and this is something that is difficult to express in just text without the aid of graphics. The basis for my opinion revolves around two things. The first is location. We know that JFK had no left side head damage. Sorry Mike but that is not a done deal either... there are numerous citations for damage to the left of JFK’s head... but you got to dig a little yourself for that... This is critical in examining a frontal head shot. Agree, have you seen the drawing Boswell did regarding the defect in the Skull? Or the photos of the AARB skull exhibit? Darn near his entire head came off, according the one of the main autopsy doctors! I have not at any time been able to locate a position, in the front of the limo, that would not have caused left head damage. Perhaps one photo that may get at least the very basic idea of this is from the laser tests. I will include it here. or a South Knoll shot, or a shot from the overpass to the South. And Finally, nothing is to say there was not more than one headshot Other positions along this line offer similar results, but again, it would take more graphics to show each of them and prove the point. The other basis for my opinion is the blood spatter. Pat Speer and I have been talking about this lately. Some things we do know abut spatter, is that there are two types with gunshot wounds. Forward spatter, in the direction of the bullet, and Back spatter, which flows back towards the shooter, or the opposite direction of the bullets travel. Pat found a citation that said: " Tom Bevel and Ross M. Gardner, Bloodstain Pattern Analysis with an Introduction to Crime Scene Reconstruction, 2008. "Forward spatter patterns when present tend to be more symmetrical than back spatter patterns. This is probably due to the primary force of the impact being transmitted in the direction of the projectile. Back spatter patterns tend to be less defined..." Pat's contention is that in saying that forward spatter "when present" is an indication that forward spatter is less dense and less obvious, however this is incorrect. The reason Mr Gardner said "when present" is simply because not all gunshot wounds have forward spatter, because not all gunshot wounds exit the target. The "when present" comment has nothing to do with its physical characteristics, and in fact Mr Gardner clears this up for us in Pats quote when he tells us "Back spatter patterns tend to be less defined..." Forward spatter is a very dense cloud of fine, high velocity, blood mist drops. Back spatter is far less defined and more of a spurt than a spray. Please forgive the terms, I simply know no other way to describe it. Back spatter is far less defined, because it is far less dense. In the Zapruder film we see only one dense cloud of fine blood mist, coming out the front of the head, indicating a rear hit. However we also have the statements of Robert Frazier in his Shaw trial testimony. Frazier tells us that the blood and matter was as far forward as the hood ornament and on the outside of the front windshield! Mind you that this was traveling against an 8mph limo speed AND a 13 mph head wind. This is significant. This would be an impossibility for back spatter. I’d need to see the sources for Frazier’s comment about blood on the outside of the windshield and on the hood... Hargis and Hill were left rear and described blood and bone hitting is face while Hill talks of blood all over the rear and Jackie scrambling to grab a piece of skull... not definitive yet also somewhat in support of 2 shots, very close together at the final headshot like many witnesses state. I really need to do an article on this as well. Same graphics issues. Quote I started a pet project in an excel spreadsheet that is trying to ID all the players on the vertical axis and the time on the horizontal - and thereby trace what the evidence says for eachof these "players" at each of teh crucial moments starting that morning when a second Oswald is seen at the Jiffy Mart while we all know Lee was at work. Armstrong makes an interesting argument - yet talk about your way out scenarios... nothing is too strange for the forces that opposed each other in this world it seems. LOL I agree with you there. I would love to see this work when you are done, and if I can offer any help with a rifle timeline let me know, Id be glad to give you what I have so far. Also found a timeline project on the Ed site that Mr. Kelly began a while back.. I posted there to say I would see what I could do to incorporate the data into my spreadsheet. Thanks for the offer and would love to see the rifle timeline you have Quote One more more question for you as sniper... how does one of the shots travel so far left and so far high - enough to hit a curb and nick Tague at the overpass... If the shots are not that difficult, a miss of that magnitude seems bizarre, no? and the mark by the manhole cover where the unidentified "agent" picks up a bullet, pockets it and walks off, and finally the witnesses that saw sparks and were told a chot hit the street... I really can dig and get the testimony but I'll hope you can trust me on that one. Hey I know this testimony as well, so no worries on the citations. The issues I have are varied on this stuff. First the manhole cover has never been tested to prove a gunshot. This makes it almost impossible to comment on without speculation. As for the man pocketing the bullet. Again this is pretty speculative as we really have no evidence of it. I understand there is a video out there where someone claims the man pocketed it then gave it to his son to take to school. Now come on, that's really kind of crazy if you ask me. I mean it's only the most epic murder of the century after all. {I have the images of him bending over, picking something up and pocketing it - Search for Murray #3} I agree with you 100% on the oddity of a miss as epic as one would have to be in order to hit the Main St curb. I myself have considered many different things in this regard, and none seem to explain to any satisfaction this issue. Frankly here I have to say at this point, I do not know. I can only speculate. just for kicks, trace back that main street miss to the 2nd floor Dal-Tex building window seen in Altgens... that much of a miss may be more realistic yet I’d like your opinion Quote Finally, given what you've seen of Dealey Plaza... and I was there as well, wouldn't the WEST window make infinitely more sense than the East? If my two options were only East or West, I would pick East. Let me explain. In the East window, I can take a shot coming up Houston, I can take a shot right after the tree and have the SS car under the tree and not be in their line of sight, and I have the entire rest of Elm with very little left to right angle. In the West window I have far less time with the target in the straight away position, and almost any other shot is passing left to right, which is far more difficult. I would have undoubtedly picked the East window, if those were my only two options. Fair enough, as a professional sniper I can see you using that logic... But if Oswald was the crazed, lone nutter deciding at the last second to go shoot the president... why NOT shoot as he is growing larger in your scope and approaching on Houston, or avoid the tree entirely and go to the West end where you do not have any obstructions at all... and your closer to the target? Finally – if he could make that shot... how in the world would he miss Gen Walker, stationary only yards away? I really need to do some more work for the website, that may more clearly define my position on some of this stuff, but at least I have offered some kind of explanation for my thinking. I certainly need to do more on the money order and rifle acquisition by Oswald. I need to look into those items more. I concentrate mostly on the physics and ballistics of the shooting, and that takes time to really analyze. I pretty well have that work done, and need to look further, admittedly. Best, Mike P.S. I sure apologize for that David, sincerely. I tried to change it, but do not see that option. Perhaps a Mod can do this for me? How about "Mike Williams jumps the gun?" LOL No more worries about that... it’s just that some of the forum readers may miss out on this info wanting to stay away from our banter... Maybe a copy paste of these posts to a new thread with a title like... Oswald, the Rifle, and the 6th floor window – For and Against... Btw – I too have a wealth of links, articles, images, etc... from which to pull... if you want me to send some files and/or links just email me dhjosephs@comcast.net. Peace DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted June 22, 2010 Author Share Posted June 22, 2010 David good stuff! Give me a little bit to work on a reply today was hectic as the dickins! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 I thought this was gonna be a real "pit bull fight" and then all of a sudden: detente? WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 I believe "blood spatter analysis" to be an "inexact science" because no two spatters would be identical. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 I believe "blood spatter analysis" to be an "inexact science" because no two spatters would be identical. Jack and even more importantly... if the blood splatter she was studying was somehow "altered" as z313-z315 may suggest, it becomes even more inexact. Yet to be fair, I understand there are some basic physical elements to the analysis that do provide reasonable scientific results. I'd rather have Sherry or Mike W address this... as Yoda might say... "an expert, I am not." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 I thought this was gonna be a real "pit bull fight" and then all of a sudden: detente? WTF? Disarm with charm... Without a doubt, the most difficult thing here is to arrive with an open mind and the possibility, however remote, that one is completely wrong - given the information to prove such - and the humility to admit it. Besides, we were back channelling a brokered peace long before we started the thread... got to keep up appearances, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted June 23, 2010 Author Share Posted June 23, 2010 I thought this was gonna be a real "pit bull fight" and then all of a sudden: detente? WTF? Disarm with charm... Without a doubt, the most difficult thing here is to arrive with an open mind and the possibility, however remote, that one is completely wrong - given the information to prove such - and the humility to admit it. Besides, we were back channelling a brokered peace long before we started the thread... got to keep up appearances, no? The simple fact of the matter Greg is that I find the same thing in Joseph that I find in you, and as you recall we had a rough patch as well. I find you both to be good guys, who have your beliefs as I do mine. Wrong or right is there somewhere and the fact is I feel we are both right on some points and wrong on others, its the nature of this beast. Best to both, Mike 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