Discussion:
Bullet Trajectory: Fact and Myth
(too old to reply)
claviger
2018-06-16 21:04:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bullet Trajectory: Fact and Myth
By Mike Nelson
https://www.chuckhawks.com/bullet_trajectory.htm

Bullet Trajectory: Fact and Myth

By Mike Nelson


Myths and errors regarding the path of a bullet generally come from a lack
of understanding of the forces acting on the bullet before, during, and
after its path through the barrel. This article will deal with the primary
forces on a bullet's trajectory, and it will mention a few of the
secondary forces. The approach is directed toward the average reader.
There is no attempt to address concerns of the mathematician or physicist,
who should either know this material or should read a more technical and
comprehensive treatise.

One of the more pervasive myths associated with bullet trajectory is that
"bullets always rise right after they leave the barrel." In general,
bullets do rise after leaving the barrel, and they immediately begin to
drop. This is not a contradiction, and the explanation is not difficult to
understand.

Bullets are affected by gravity whether in flight or not, and, when they
leave the barrel, they no longer have any physical support, such as the
brass, the box, your pocket, the magazine, the chamber, or the barrel, so
they begin to fall. In addition, they are traveling through air, so air
resistance progressively slows their flight. On most occasions the barrel
is slanted upward slightly to compensate for this immediate drop; thus,
for all but extreme shots, since the barrel is aimed slightly upward, the
bullet does, indeed, rise slightly after it leaves the barrel, but it
bullet never rises above the axis of the barrel. (Just like a football
generally rises above the player when they throw a pass. The longer the
pass, the greater the starting angle, and the higher the "rise" before the
ball begins to fall.)

In scientific terms, "thrown" objects, whether by hand, explosion,
springs, compressed air, or other forces, are called "projectiles," their
path in space is called their "trajectory," and the study of their
trajectories is called "ballistics." Those who fail to understand the
elementary physics of ballistics often misinterpret the configuration of
barrel and the line of sight and assume that something "special" happens
to the bullet during its flight. Many things happen, but nothing
"special;" bullets fly just like any other projectile and are subject to
the same laws of physics.

The following drawings, though not to exact scale, show the typical paths
of bullets and the relationship of these paths to the line of sight,
whether determined by open sights or optical sights.

Horizontal Shot. If the barrel is horizontal to the surface of the earth
when fired, the bullet never rises above the barrel, and gravity causes an
immediate descent.


Typical Alignment. Generally, for what we consider a "horizontal" shot,
the sight alignment places the barrel in a slightly upward tilt, and the
bullet starts its arc, rises slightly above the level of the muzzle, but
never above the axis of the barrel, reaches a peak, then descends. Figure
2 is the graph of a centerfire rifle cartridge that stays within a 6 inch
circle for a distance of about 210 yards. Sighted in at approximately 170
yards, this round is approximately 3 inches high at 100 yards and three
inches low at approximately 210 yards. You must, of course, always check
trajectory data for your particular rifle and cartridge combination.


Velocity. The velocity is a factor in determining energy on impact and the
horizontal velocity determines how far the bullet travels before it hits
the ground. The above illustrations apply to all ballistic projectiles
whether bullets, rocks, or ping pong balls.

Low Velocity Bullets. Bullets at nominally 800 fps to perhaps 1600 fps,
such as 22 LR, most pistols, and older rifle cartridges, must follow a
rather high arc in order to reach a target 100 yards away. In fact, most
of these slower cartridges are only useful to about 50 yards, perhaps 75
yards for some in the upper end of this range.

High Velocity Bullets. Bullets at 2600 fps and up, such as the .223,
22-250, .243/6mm, .270, .308, 30-06, follow a much lower arc to reach a
target, and their useful range can be upward of 200 yards. These are often
referred to as "flatter" trajectories. With higher velocities, these
bullets go much further before gravity and air resistance cause them to
fall below the initial line of sight.

Since the barrel is generally directed at an angle to the line of sight,
sighting directly upward or directly downward results in a trajectory that
deviates even more from the line of sight than the typical, relatively
level shot. Still, the effects of gravity and air resistance are the same
as far as the bullet is concerned, it is just that the trajectory at such
a steep angle is more divergent from the line of sight.

Secondary Ballistics Phenomena. In general, bullets follow a parabolic
arc. In reality, that arc is modified significantly by air resistance,
which slows the bullet during flight and effects a shortening of the arc
down range. That is why the highest point of the usable portion of the
trajectory is not the midpoint of that trajectory. Bullet shape and the
spin from rifling also influence the trajectory slightly by reducing air
resistance and stabilizing bullet orientation. That is why a 500 grain
rifle bullet, for example, has a much better trajectory than a 500 grain
ball from a smooth bore, all other things being equal.

Fact or Myth. So, does a bullet rise after it leaves the muzzle? One says,
"yes." Another says, "no." Who is correct? Both could be correct because
of different meanings associated with the word, "rise." They might argue
incessantly, but their argument will not change the physical aspects of
the path of the bullet. If they would concentrate on discussing the
physical events, they would eventually conclude that they were each using
the word, "rise," differently or that one of them did not understand
elementary ballistics.

Thought Question. When sighted in for a typical hunting or target
situation, what is the path of the bullet in relation to the sight picture
if the rifle is aimed directly up or down?
Bill Clarke
2018-06-18 16:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.



In article <e88eecaa-fbd3-44dd-8c48-***@googlegroups.com>, claviger
says...
Post by claviger
Bullet Trajectory: Fact and Myth
By Mike Nelson
https://www.chuckhawks.com/bullet_trajectory.htm
Bullet Trajectory: Fact and Myth
By Mike Nelson
Myths and errors regarding the path of a bullet generally come from a lack
of understanding of the forces acting on the bullet before, during, and
after its path through the barrel. This article will deal with the primary
forces on a bullet's trajectory, and it will mention a few of the
secondary forces. The approach is directed toward the average reader.
There is no attempt to address concerns of the mathematician or physicist,
who should either know this material or should read a more technical and
comprehensive treatise.
One of the more pervasive myths associated with bullet trajectory is that
"bullets always rise right after they leave the barrel." In general,
bullets do rise after leaving the barrel, and they immediately begin to
drop. This is not a contradiction, and the explanation is not difficult to
understand.
Bullets are affected by gravity whether in flight or not, and, when they
leave the barrel, they no longer have any physical support, such as the
brass, the box, your pocket, the magazine, the chamber, or the barrel, so
they begin to fall. In addition, they are traveling through air, so air
resistance progressively slows their flight. On most occasions the barrel
is slanted upward slightly to compensate for this immediate drop; thus,
for all but extreme shots, since the barrel is aimed slightly upward, the
bullet does, indeed, rise slightly after it leaves the barrel, but it
bullet never rises above the axis of the barrel. (Just like a football
generally rises above the player when they throw a pass. The longer the
pass, the greater the starting angle, and the higher the "rise" before the
ball begins to fall.)
In scientific terms, "thrown" objects, whether by hand, explosion,
springs, compressed air, or other forces, are called "projectiles," their
path in space is called their "trajectory," and the study of their
trajectories is called "ballistics." Those who fail to understand the
elementary physics of ballistics often misinterpret the configuration of
barrel and the line of sight and assume that something "special" happens
to the bullet during its flight. Many things happen, but nothing
"special;" bullets fly just like any other projectile and are subject to
the same laws of physics.
The following drawings, though not to exact scale, show the typical paths
of bullets and the relationship of these paths to the line of sight,
whether determined by open sights or optical sights.
Horizontal Shot. If the barrel is horizontal to the surface of the earth
when fired, the bullet never rises above the barrel, and gravity causes an
immediate descent.
Typical Alignment. Generally, for what we consider a "horizontal" shot,
the sight alignment places the barrel in a slightly upward tilt, and the
bullet starts its arc, rises slightly above the level of the muzzle, but
never above the axis of the barrel, reaches a peak, then descends. Figure
2 is the graph of a centerfire rifle cartridge that stays within a 6 inch
circle for a distance of about 210 yards. Sighted in at approximately 170
yards, this round is approximately 3 inches high at 100 yards and three
inches low at approximately 210 yards. You must, of course, always check
trajectory data for your particular rifle and cartridge combination.
Velocity. The velocity is a factor in determining energy on impact and the
horizontal velocity determines how far the bullet travels before it hits
the ground. The above illustrations apply to all ballistic projectiles
whether bullets, rocks, or ping pong balls.
Low Velocity Bullets. Bullets at nominally 800 fps to perhaps 1600 fps,
such as 22 LR, most pistols, and older rifle cartridges, must follow a
rather high arc in order to reach a target 100 yards away. In fact, most
of these slower cartridges are only useful to about 50 yards, perhaps 75
yards for some in the upper end of this range.
High Velocity Bullets. Bullets at 2600 fps and up, such as the .223,
22-250, .243/6mm, .270, .308, 30-06, follow a much lower arc to reach a
target, and their useful range can be upward of 200 yards. These are often
referred to as "flatter" trajectories. With higher velocities, these
bullets go much further before gravity and air resistance cause them to
fall below the initial line of sight.
Since the barrel is generally directed at an angle to the line of sight,
sighting directly upward or directly downward results in a trajectory that
deviates even more from the line of sight than the typical, relatively
level shot. Still, the effects of gravity and air resistance are the same
as far as the bullet is concerned, it is just that the trajectory at such
a steep angle is more divergent from the line of sight.
Secondary Ballistics Phenomena. In general, bullets follow a parabolic
arc. In reality, that arc is modified significantly by air resistance,
which slows the bullet during flight and effects a shortening of the arc
down range. That is why the highest point of the usable portion of the
trajectory is not the midpoint of that trajectory. Bullet shape and the
spin from rifling also influence the trajectory slightly by reducing air
resistance and stabilizing bullet orientation. That is why a 500 grain
rifle bullet, for example, has a much better trajectory than a 500 grain
ball from a smooth bore, all other things being equal.
Fact or Myth. So, does a bullet rise after it leaves the muzzle? One says,
"yes." Another says, "no." Who is correct? Both could be correct because
of different meanings associated with the word, "rise." They might argue
incessantly, but their argument will not change the physical aspects of
the path of the bullet. If they would concentrate on discussing the
physical events, they would eventually conclude that they were each using
the word, "rise," differently or that one of them did not understand
elementary ballistics.
Thought Question. When sighted in for a typical hunting or target
situation, what is the path of the bullet in relation to the sight picture
if the rifle is aimed directly up or down?
bigdog
2018-06-19 01:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.

I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
Bill Clarke
2018-06-19 21:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <4a990b75-9c6a-4021-bbbc-***@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
Roger that Bigdog. It seems simple to me but poor Marsh just can't seem
to get it.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-23 00:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
Roger that Bigdog. It seems simple to me but poor Marsh just can't seem
to get it.
Loading Image...
Bill Clarke
2018-06-24 00:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
Roger that Bigdog. It seems simple to me but poor Marsh just can't seem
to get it.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
It isn't our fault you can't understand what the good Colonel is telling
you. Why don't you explain to us what he says. I always get a kick out of
this.
mainframetech
2018-06-20 01:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-20 19:11:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Bill Clarke
2018-06-21 16:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <67b16925-19b4-4c6e-9116-***@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
bigdog
2018-06-23 00:21:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
This comes from years of experience of watching my golf balls curve away
from their intended direction.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-24 00:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
This comes from years of experience of watching my golf balls curve away
from their intended direction.
Is that the ones with dimples or without?
Your anecdotal guessing is unscientific.
mainframetech
2018-06-24 00:38:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
This comes from years of experience of watching my golf balls curve away
from their intended direction.
Ever see a golf ball rise before falling?

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-24 20:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
This comes from years of experience of watching my golf balls curve away
from their intended direction.
Ever see a golf ball rise before falling?
All the time. The rise because they have backspin. Dimples were put on the
golf ball because it increases resistance which creates more rise. Without
dimples giving lift to the ball, golf balls wouldn't fly very high or very
far.

This effect was discovered by accident. The original golf balls were
leather sacks stuffed with feathers. They would have a very smooth surface
when new. Golfers noticed that after their balls became scuffed up through
use they began flying higher and farther. That began the process of
pounding dimples into the leather before forming the ball. That process
has continued through the development of the gutta percha ball, the rubber
core ball, and finally the solid core golf balls in use today.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-25 18:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
This comes from years of experience of watching my golf balls curve away
from their intended direction.
Ever see a golf ball rise before falling?
All the time. The rise because they have backspin. Dimples were put on the
golf ball because it increases resistance which creates more rise. Without
dimples giving lift to the ball, golf balls wouldn't fly very high or very
far.
This effect was discovered by accident. The original golf balls were
leather sacks stuffed with feathers. They would have a very smooth surface
when new. Golfers noticed that after their balls became scuffed up through
use they began flying higher and farther. That began the process of
pounding dimples into the leather before forming the ball. That process
has continued through the development of the gutta percha ball, the rubber
core ball, and finally the solid core golf balls in use today.
Doesn't Trump have gold core balls?
mainframetech
2018-06-26 02:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
This comes from years of experience of watching my golf balls curve away
from their intended direction.
Ever see a golf ball rise before falling?
All the time. The rise because they have backspin. Dimples were put on the
golf ball because it increases resistance which creates more rise. Without
dimples giving lift to the ball, golf balls wouldn't fly very high or very
far.
This effect was discovered by accident. The original golf balls were
leather sacks stuffed with feathers. They would have a very smooth surface
when new. Golfers noticed that after their balls became scuffed up through
use they began flying higher and farther. That began the process of
pounding dimples into the leather before forming the ball. That process
has continued through the development of the gutta percha ball, the rubber
core ball, and finally the solid core golf balls in use today.
I wonder when ammunition was lead balls whether they would rise if
they were cut a certain way and given some spin when fired.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-26 21:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
This comes from years of experience of watching my golf balls curve away
from their intended direction.
Ever see a golf ball rise before falling?
All the time. The rise because they have backspin. Dimples were put on the
golf ball because it increases resistance which creates more rise. Without
dimples giving lift to the ball, golf balls wouldn't fly very high or very
far.
This effect was discovered by accident. The original golf balls were
leather sacks stuffed with feathers. They would have a very smooth surface
when new. Golfers noticed that after their balls became scuffed up through
use they began flying higher and farther. That began the process of
pounding dimples into the leather before forming the ball. That process
has continued through the development of the gutta percha ball, the rubber
core ball, and finally the solid core golf balls in use today.
I wonder when ammunition was lead balls whether they would rise if
they were cut a certain way and given some spin when fired.
To make a lead ball rise you would have to impart backspin. Spin is
imparted to a bullet by the spiraled grooves on the inner surface of the
muzzle. The axis of rotation is going to be on the same line as the
initial direction of the bullet. For spin to cause curving the axis of
rotation must be at an angle to the direction of travel. In a perfectly
struck golf ball, the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the direction
of travel and the only spin will be backspin which gives lift to a ball.
There will be no sidespin at all. The problem in golf is that it is
virtually impossible to consistently strike a ball with no sidespin.
That's why even the best golfers develop swings in which the sidespin is
either left to right or right to left. They will tell you that they can't
consistently hit perfectly straight shots but they can hit 50 in a row
that will curve in the same direction. They won't all curve the same
amount but they will all curve in the same direction. Dustin Johnson who
is currently the #1 ranked player in the world has developed a swing which
reliably curves the ball left to right. He knows if he aims his tee shot
down the left edge of the fairway his ball will curve back toward the
fairway. Since he knows which way his ball is going to curve, he is able
to consistently hit fairways. Even the best of golfers is going to make
bad swings and instead of the ball curving to the right, it curves left.
This is what golfers refer to as a double cross. The shot is aimed
expecting it to curve right but instead it curves to the left and produces
a wildly missed shot. I am all too familiar with this shot.
mainframetech
2018-06-28 01:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
This comes from years of experience of watching my golf balls curve away
from their intended direction.
Ever see a golf ball rise before falling?
All the time. The rise because they have backspin. Dimples were put on the
golf ball because it increases resistance which creates more rise. Without
dimples giving lift to the ball, golf balls wouldn't fly very high or very
far.
This effect was discovered by accident. The original golf balls were
leather sacks stuffed with feathers. They would have a very smooth surface
when new. Golfers noticed that after their balls became scuffed up through
use they began flying higher and farther. That began the process of
pounding dimples into the leather before forming the ball. That process
has continued through the development of the gutta percha ball, the rubber
core ball, and finally the solid core golf balls in use today.
I wonder when ammunition was lead balls whether they would rise if
they were cut a certain way and given some spin when fired.
To make a lead ball rise you would have to impart backspin. Spin is
imparted to a bullet by the spiraled grooves on the inner surface of the
muzzle. The axis of rotation is going to be on the same line as the
initial direction of the bullet. For spin to cause curving the axis of
rotation must be at an angle to the direction of travel. In a perfectly
struck golf ball, the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the direction
of travel and the only spin will be backspin which gives lift to a ball.
There will be no sidespin at all. The problem in golf is that it is
virtually impossible to consistently strike a ball with no sidespin.
That's why even the best golfers develop swings in which the sidespin is
either left to right or right to left. They will tell you that they can't
consistently hit perfectly straight shots but they can hit 50 in a row
that will curve in the same direction. They won't all curve the same
amount but they will all curve in the same direction. Dustin Johnson who
is currently the #1 ranked player in the world has developed a swing which
reliably curves the ball left to right. He knows if he aims his tee shot
down the left edge of the fairway his ball will curve back toward the
fairway. Since he knows which way his ball is going to curve, he is able
to consistently hit fairways. Even the best of golfers is going to make
bad swings and instead of the ball curving to the right, it curves left.
This is what golfers refer to as a double cross. The shot is aimed
expecting it to curve right but instead it curves to the left and produces
a wildly missed shot. I am all too familiar with this shot.
You seem to have forgotten that at one time when they used actual lead
balls in rifle that the rifles didn't have rifling.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-29 00:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
This comes from years of experience of watching my golf balls curve away
from their intended direction.
Ever see a golf ball rise before falling?
All the time. The rise because they have backspin. Dimples were put on the
golf ball because it increases resistance which creates more rise. Without
dimples giving lift to the ball, golf balls wouldn't fly very high or very
far.
This effect was discovered by accident. The original golf balls were
leather sacks stuffed with feathers. They would have a very smooth surface
when new. Golfers noticed that after their balls became scuffed up through
use they began flying higher and farther. That began the process of
pounding dimples into the leather before forming the ball. That process
has continued through the development of the gutta percha ball, the rubber
core ball, and finally the solid core golf balls in use today.
I wonder when ammunition was lead balls whether they would rise if
they were cut a certain way and given some spin when fired.
To make a lead ball rise you would have to impart backspin. Spin is
imparted to a bullet by the spiraled grooves on the inner surface of the
muzzle. The axis of rotation is going to be on the same line as the
initial direction of the bullet. For spin to cause curving the axis of
rotation must be at an angle to the direction of travel. In a perfectly
struck golf ball, the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the direction
of travel and the only spin will be backspin which gives lift to a ball.
There will be no sidespin at all. The problem in golf is that it is
virtually impossible to consistently strike a ball with no sidespin.
That's why even the best golfers develop swings in which the sidespin is
either left to right or right to left. They will tell you that they can't
consistently hit perfectly straight shots but they can hit 50 in a row
that will curve in the same direction. They won't all curve the same
amount but they will all curve in the same direction. Dustin Johnson who
is currently the #1 ranked player in the world has developed a swing which
reliably curves the ball left to right. He knows if he aims his tee shot
down the left edge of the fairway his ball will curve back toward the
fairway. Since he knows which way his ball is going to curve, he is able
to consistently hit fairways. Even the best of golfers is going to make
bad swings and instead of the ball curving to the right, it curves left.
This is what golfers refer to as a double cross. The shot is aimed
expecting it to curve right but instead it curves to the left and produces
a wildly missed shot. I am all too familiar with this shot.
You seem to have forgotten that at one time when they used actual lead
balls in rifle that the rifles didn't have rifling.
That is true which is why they flew so erratically and were so inaccurate.
They had no spin at all. They traveled like knuckleballs and the
variations in the resistance was due to the imperfections in the bullet
just as a knuckleball behaves in baseball. For those who aren't baseball
fans, a knuckleball is a pitch deliberately thrown with no spin that it's
movement is unpredictable even to the pitcher throwing it and the catcher
trying to catch it. It all depends on how the seams are oriented as it
travels toward home plate. Bob Uecker has joked that the best way to catch
a knuckleball is to wait until it stops rolling and then pick it up.

Getting back to firearms and the JFK assassination, it is rather ludicrous
to think assassins would use a smooth bore musket but since you have them
firing substandard ammo from ridiculous locations, I suppose anything is
possible.
mainframetech
2018-06-30 15:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
This comes from years of experience of watching my golf balls curve away
from their intended direction.
Ever see a golf ball rise before falling?
All the time. The rise because they have backspin. Dimples were put on the
golf ball because it increases resistance which creates more rise. Without
dimples giving lift to the ball, golf balls wouldn't fly very high or very
far.
This effect was discovered by accident. The original golf balls were
leather sacks stuffed with feathers. They would have a very smooth surface
when new. Golfers noticed that after their balls became scuffed up through
use they began flying higher and farther. That began the process of
pounding dimples into the leather before forming the ball. That process
has continued through the development of the gutta percha ball, the rubber
core ball, and finally the solid core golf balls in use today.
I wonder when ammunition was lead balls whether they would rise if
they were cut a certain way and given some spin when fired.
To make a lead ball rise you would have to impart backspin. Spin is
imparted to a bullet by the spiraled grooves on the inner surface of the
muzzle. The axis of rotation is going to be on the same line as the
initial direction of the bullet. For spin to cause curving the axis of
rotation must be at an angle to the direction of travel. In a perfectly
struck golf ball, the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the direction
of travel and the only spin will be backspin which gives lift to a ball.
There will be no sidespin at all. The problem in golf is that it is
virtually impossible to consistently strike a ball with no sidespin.
That's why even the best golfers develop swings in which the sidespin is
either left to right or right to left. They will tell you that they can't
consistently hit perfectly straight shots but they can hit 50 in a row
that will curve in the same direction. They won't all curve the same
amount but they will all curve in the same direction. Dustin Johnson who
is currently the #1 ranked player in the world has developed a swing which
reliably curves the ball left to right. He knows if he aims his tee shot
down the left edge of the fairway his ball will curve back toward the
fairway. Since he knows which way his ball is going to curve, he is able
to consistently hit fairways. Even the best of golfers is going to make
bad swings and instead of the ball curving to the right, it curves left.
This is what golfers refer to as a double cross. The shot is aimed
expecting it to curve right but instead it curves to the left and produces
a wildly missed shot. I am all too familiar with this shot.
You seem to have forgotten that at one time when they used actual lead
balls in rifle that the rifles didn't have rifling.
That is true which is why they flew so erratically and were so inaccurate.
They had no spin at all. They traveled like knuckleballs and the
variations in the resistance was due to the imperfections in the bullet
just as a knuckleball behaves in baseball. For those who aren't baseball
fans, a knuckleball is a pitch deliberately thrown with no spin that it's
movement is unpredictable even to the pitcher throwing it and the catcher
trying to catch it. It all depends on how the seams are oriented as it
travels toward home plate. Bob Uecker has joked that the best way to catch
a knuckleball is to wait until it stops rolling and then pick it up.
Getting back to firearms and the JFK assassination, it is rather ludicrous
to think assassins would use a smooth bore musket but since you have them
firing substandard ammo from ridiculous locations, I suppose anything is
possible.
Try using your head for something other than a hammer. We weren't
talking about an actual case, only in the abstract and the rise of a
bullet under certain circumstances.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-01 00:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
This comes from years of experience of watching my golf balls curve away
from their intended direction.
Ever see a golf ball rise before falling?
All the time. The rise because they have backspin. Dimples were put on the
golf ball because it increases resistance which creates more rise. Without
dimples giving lift to the ball, golf balls wouldn't fly very high or very
far.
This effect was discovered by accident. The original golf balls were
leather sacks stuffed with feathers. They would have a very smooth surface
when new. Golfers noticed that after their balls became scuffed up through
use they began flying higher and farther. That began the process of
pounding dimples into the leather before forming the ball. That process
has continued through the development of the gutta percha ball, the rubber
core ball, and finally the solid core golf balls in use today.
I wonder when ammunition was lead balls whether they would rise if
they were cut a certain way and given some spin when fired.
To make a lead ball rise you would have to impart backspin. Spin is
imparted to a bullet by the spiraled grooves on the inner surface of the
muzzle. The axis of rotation is going to be on the same line as the
initial direction of the bullet. For spin to cause curving the axis of
rotation must be at an angle to the direction of travel. In a perfectly
struck golf ball, the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the direction
of travel and the only spin will be backspin which gives lift to a ball.
There will be no sidespin at all. The problem in golf is that it is
virtually impossible to consistently strike a ball with no sidespin.
That's why even the best golfers develop swings in which the sidespin is
either left to right or right to left. They will tell you that they can't
consistently hit perfectly straight shots but they can hit 50 in a row
that will curve in the same direction. They won't all curve the same
amount but they will all curve in the same direction. Dustin Johnson who
is currently the #1 ranked player in the world has developed a swing which
reliably curves the ball left to right. He knows if he aims his tee shot
down the left edge of the fairway his ball will curve back toward the
fairway. Since he knows which way his ball is going to curve, he is able
to consistently hit fairways. Even the best of golfers is going to make
bad swings and instead of the ball curving to the right, it curves left.
This is what golfers refer to as a double cross. The shot is aimed
expecting it to curve right but instead it curves to the left and produces
a wildly missed shot. I am all too familiar with this shot.
You seem to have forgotten that at one time when they used actual lead
balls in rifle that the rifles didn't have rifling.
That is true which is why they flew so erratically and were so inaccurate.
They had no spin at all. They traveled like knuckleballs and the
variations in the resistance was due to the imperfections in the bullet
just as a knuckleball behaves in baseball. For those who aren't baseball
fans, a knuckleball is a pitch deliberately thrown with no spin that it's
movement is unpredictable even to the pitcher throwing it and the catcher
trying to catch it. It all depends on how the seams are oriented as it
travels toward home plate. Bob Uecker has joked that the best way to catch
a knuckleball is to wait until it stops rolling and then pick it up.
Getting back to firearms and the JFK assassination, it is rather ludicrous
to think assassins would use a smooth bore musket but since you have them
firing substandard ammo from ridiculous locations, I suppose anything is
possible.
Try using your head for something other than a hammer. We weren't
talking about an actual case, only in the abstract and the rise of a
bullet under certain circumstances.
It is ludicrous to think a bullet is going to rise above the line of the
bore in ANY circumstance. Even ball ammo would need backspin in order to
rise and there is no way to impart that kind of spin when firing a bullet.
If the bore has spiraled grooves as is the case with all modern firearms,
the axis of rotation will be in line with the bore so the bullet is not
going to curve in any direction except as a result of windage. Any
tumbling of a bullet as it exits a smooth bore is not going to be enough
to offset the effects of gravity so it too is going to begin curving below
the line of the bore as soon as it leaves the muzzle.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-02 15:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
This comes from years of experience of watching my golf balls curve away
from their intended direction.
Ever see a golf ball rise before falling?
All the time. The rise because they have backspin. Dimples were put on the
golf ball because it increases resistance which creates more rise. Without
dimples giving lift to the ball, golf balls wouldn't fly very high or very
far.
This effect was discovered by accident. The original golf balls were
leather sacks stuffed with feathers. They would have a very smooth surface
when new. Golfers noticed that after their balls became scuffed up through
use they began flying higher and farther. That began the process of
pounding dimples into the leather before forming the ball. That process
has continued through the development of the gutta percha ball, the rubber
core ball, and finally the solid core golf balls in use today.
I wonder when ammunition was lead balls whether they would rise if
they were cut a certain way and given some spin when fired.
To make a lead ball rise you would have to impart backspin. Spin is
imparted to a bullet by the spiraled grooves on the inner surface of the
muzzle. The axis of rotation is going to be on the same line as the
initial direction of the bullet. For spin to cause curving the axis of
rotation must be at an angle to the direction of travel. In a perfectly
struck golf ball, the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the direction
of travel and the only spin will be backspin which gives lift to a ball.
There will be no sidespin at all. The problem in golf is that it is
virtually impossible to consistently strike a ball with no sidespin.
That's why even the best golfers develop swings in which the sidespin is
either left to right or right to left. They will tell you that they can't
consistently hit perfectly straight shots but they can hit 50 in a row
that will curve in the same direction. They won't all curve the same
amount but they will all curve in the same direction. Dustin Johnson who
is currently the #1 ranked player in the world has developed a swing which
reliably curves the ball left to right. He knows if he aims his tee shot
down the left edge of the fairway his ball will curve back toward the
fairway. Since he knows which way his ball is going to curve, he is able
to consistently hit fairways. Even the best of golfers is going to make
bad swings and instead of the ball curving to the right, it curves left.
This is what golfers refer to as a double cross. The shot is aimed
expecting it to curve right but instead it curves to the left and produces
a wildly missed shot. I am all too familiar with this shot.
You seem to have forgotten that at one time when they used actual lead
balls in rifle that the rifles didn't have rifling.
That is true which is why they flew so erratically and were so inaccurate.
They had no spin at all. They traveled like knuckleballs and the
variations in the resistance was due to the imperfections in the bullet
just as a knuckleball behaves in baseball. For those who aren't baseball
fans, a knuckleball is a pitch deliberately thrown with no spin that it's
movement is unpredictable even to the pitcher throwing it and the catcher
trying to catch it. It all depends on how the seams are oriented as it
travels toward home plate. Bob Uecker has joked that the best way to catch
a knuckleball is to wait until it stops rolling and then pick it up.
Getting back to firearms and the JFK assassination, it is rather ludicrous
to think assassins would use a smooth bore musket but since you have them
firing substandard ammo from ridiculous locations, I suppose anything is
possible.
Try using your head for something other than a hammer. We weren't
talking about an actual case, only in the abstract and the rise of a
bullet under certain circumstances.
It is ludicrous to think a bullet is going to rise above the line of the
bore in ANY circumstance. Even ball ammo would need backspin in order to
rise and there is no way to impart that kind of spin when firing a bullet.
If the bore has spiraled grooves as is the case with all modern firearms,
the axis of rotation will be in line with the bore so the bullet is not
going to curve in any direction except as a result of windage. Any
tumbling of a bullet as it exits a smooth bore is not going to be enough
to offset the effects of gravity so it too is going to begin curving below
the line of the bore as soon as it leaves the muzzle.
Silly. You know nothing about guns. The muzzle is aimed upwards to account
for the bullet falling in flight. The moment the bullet leaves the muzzle
it is going above the line of sight, above the muzzle.



http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg

Oswald's Carcano had a very HIGH flight profile like Example A. Even with
the M-1 which has a flat trajectory the bullet will be 7.2" above the
point of aim when it's 161 yards from the rifle. Read Emary and learn.
Bill Clarke
2018-07-03 20:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
This comes from years of experience of watching my golf balls curve away
from their intended direction.
Ever see a golf ball rise before falling?
All the time. The rise because they have backspin. Dimples were put on the
golf ball because it increases resistance which creates more rise. Without
dimples giving lift to the ball, golf balls wouldn't fly very high or very
far.
This effect was discovered by accident. The original golf balls were
leather sacks stuffed with feathers. They would have a very smooth surface
when new. Golfers noticed that after their balls became scuffed up through
use they began flying higher and farther. That began the process of
pounding dimples into the leather before forming the ball. That process
has continued through the development of the gutta percha ball, the rubber
core ball, and finally the solid core golf balls in use today.
I wonder when ammunition was lead balls whether they would rise if
they were cut a certain way and given some spin when fired.
To make a lead ball rise you would have to impart backspin. Spin is
imparted to a bullet by the spiraled grooves on the inner surface of the
muzzle. The axis of rotation is going to be on the same line as the
initial direction of the bullet. For spin to cause curving the axis of
rotation must be at an angle to the direction of travel. In a perfectly
struck golf ball, the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the direction
of travel and the only spin will be backspin which gives lift to a ball.
There will be no sidespin at all. The problem in golf is that it is
virtually impossible to consistently strike a ball with no sidespin.
That's why even the best golfers develop swings in which the sidespin is
either left to right or right to left. They will tell you that they can't
consistently hit perfectly straight shots but they can hit 50 in a row
that will curve in the same direction. They won't all curve the same
amount but they will all curve in the same direction. Dustin Johnson who
is currently the #1 ranked player in the world has developed a swing which
reliably curves the ball left to right. He knows if he aims his tee shot
down the left edge of the fairway his ball will curve back toward the
fairway. Since he knows which way his ball is going to curve, he is able
to consistently hit fairways. Even the best of golfers is going to make
bad swings and instead of the ball curving to the right, it curves left.
This is what golfers refer to as a double cross. The shot is aimed
expecting it to curve right but instead it curves to the left and produces
a wildly missed shot. I am all too familiar with this shot.
You seem to have forgotten that at one time when they used actual lead
balls in rifle that the rifles didn't have rifling.
That is true which is why they flew so erratically and were so inaccurate.
They had no spin at all. They traveled like knuckleballs and the
variations in the resistance was due to the imperfections in the bullet
just as a knuckleball behaves in baseball. For those who aren't baseball
fans, a knuckleball is a pitch deliberately thrown with no spin that it's
movement is unpredictable even to the pitcher throwing it and the catcher
trying to catch it. It all depends on how the seams are oriented as it
travels toward home plate. Bob Uecker has joked that the best way to catch
a knuckleball is to wait until it stops rolling and then pick it up.
Getting back to firearms and the JFK assassination, it is rather ludicrous
to think assassins would use a smooth bore musket but since you have them
firing substandard ammo from ridiculous locations, I suppose anything is
possible.
Try using your head for something other than a hammer. We weren't
talking about an actual case, only in the abstract and the rise of a
bullet under certain circumstances.
It is ludicrous to think a bullet is going to rise above the line of the
bore in ANY circumstance. Even ball ammo would need backspin in order to
rise and there is no way to impart that kind of spin when firing a bullet.
If the bore has spiraled grooves as is the case with all modern firearms,
the axis of rotation will be in line with the bore so the bullet is not
going to curve in any direction except as a result of windage. Any
tumbling of a bullet as it exits a smooth bore is not going to be enough
to offset the effects of gravity so it too is going to begin curving below
the line of the bore as soon as it leaves the muzzle.
Silly. You know nothing about guns. The muzzle is aimed upwards to account
for the bullet falling in flight. The moment the bullet leaves the muzzle
it is going above the line of sight, above the muzzle.
No, no, no not only no but hell no. You're embarrassing yourself here.
The moment the bullet leaves the barrel it begins to drop. It is a slight
drop that becomes steeper with more distance. Do I need to explain that
to you too? The only factor you can adjust here is the line of sight.
So it is adjusted DOWN and intersects with the bullet trajectory at 20 to
40 yards and then again at zero. And you tell someone they know nothing
about guns. I chortle.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
Oswald's Carcano had a very HIGH flight profile like Example A. Even with
the M-1 which has a flat trajectory the bullet will be 7.2" above the
point of aim when it's 161 yards from the rifle. Read Emary and learn.
Wouldn't that depend on the distance to the zero General?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-04 13:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
This comes from years of experience of watching my golf balls curve away
from their intended direction.
Ever see a golf ball rise before falling?
All the time. The rise because they have backspin. Dimples were put on the
golf ball because it increases resistance which creates more rise. Without
dimples giving lift to the ball, golf balls wouldn't fly very high or very
far.
This effect was discovered by accident. The original golf balls were
leather sacks stuffed with feathers. They would have a very smooth surface
when new. Golfers noticed that after their balls became scuffed up through
use they began flying higher and farther. That began the process of
pounding dimples into the leather before forming the ball. That process
has continued through the development of the gutta percha ball, the rubber
core ball, and finally the solid core golf balls in use today.
I wonder when ammunition was lead balls whether they would rise if
they were cut a certain way and given some spin when fired.
To make a lead ball rise you would have to impart backspin. Spin is
imparted to a bullet by the spiraled grooves on the inner surface of the
muzzle. The axis of rotation is going to be on the same line as the
initial direction of the bullet. For spin to cause curving the axis of
rotation must be at an angle to the direction of travel. In a perfectly
struck golf ball, the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the direction
of travel and the only spin will be backspin which gives lift to a ball.
There will be no sidespin at all. The problem in golf is that it is
virtually impossible to consistently strike a ball with no sidespin.
That's why even the best golfers develop swings in which the sidespin is
either left to right or right to left. They will tell you that they can't
consistently hit perfectly straight shots but they can hit 50 in a row
that will curve in the same direction. They won't all curve the same
amount but they will all curve in the same direction. Dustin Johnson who
is currently the #1 ranked player in the world has developed a swing which
reliably curves the ball left to right. He knows if he aims his tee shot
down the left edge of the fairway his ball will curve back toward the
fairway. Since he knows which way his ball is going to curve, he is able
to consistently hit fairways. Even the best of golfers is going to make
bad swings and instead of the ball curving to the right, it curves left.
This is what golfers refer to as a double cross. The shot is aimed
expecting it to curve right but instead it curves to the left and produces
a wildly missed shot. I am all too familiar with this shot.
You seem to have forgotten that at one time when they used actual lead
balls in rifle that the rifles didn't have rifling.
That is true which is why they flew so erratically and were so inaccurate.
They had no spin at all. They traveled like knuckleballs and the
variations in the resistance was due to the imperfections in the bullet
just as a knuckleball behaves in baseball. For those who aren't baseball
fans, a knuckleball is a pitch deliberately thrown with no spin that it's
movement is unpredictable even to the pitcher throwing it and the catcher
trying to catch it. It all depends on how the seams are oriented as it
travels toward home plate. Bob Uecker has joked that the best way to catch
a knuckleball is to wait until it stops rolling and then pick it up.
Getting back to firearms and the JFK assassination, it is rather ludicrous
to think assassins would use a smooth bore musket but since you have them
firing substandard ammo from ridiculous locations, I suppose anything is
possible.
Try using your head for something other than a hammer. We weren't
talking about an actual case, only in the abstract and the rise of a
bullet under certain circumstances.
It is ludicrous to think a bullet is going to rise above the line of the
bore in ANY circumstance. Even ball ammo would need backspin in order to
rise and there is no way to impart that kind of spin when firing a bullet.
If the bore has spiraled grooves as is the case with all modern firearms,
the axis of rotation will be in line with the bore so the bullet is not
going to curve in any direction except as a result of windage. Any
tumbling of a bullet as it exits a smooth bore is not going to be enough
to offset the effects of gravity so it too is going to begin curving below
the line of the bore as soon as it leaves the muzzle.
Silly. You know nothing about guns. The muzzle is aimed upwards to account
for the bullet falling in flight. The moment the bullet leaves the muzzle
it is going above the line of sight, above the muzzle.
No, no, no not only no but hell no. You're embarrassing yourself here.
The moment the bullet leaves the barrel it begins to drop. It is a slight
drop that becomes steeper with more distance. Do I need to explain that
to you too? The only factor you can adjust here is the line of sight.
So it is adjusted DOWN and intersects with the bullet trajectory at 20 to
40 yards and then again at zero. And you tell someone they know nothing
about guns. I chortle.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
Oswald's Carcano had a very HIGH flight profile like Example A. Even with
the M-1 which has a flat trajectory the bullet will be 7.2" above the
point of aim when it's 161 yards from the rifle. Read Emary and learn.
Wouldn't that depend on the distance to the zero General?
Midway. And it depends on the Battle Zero chosen.

161 yards was about midway for those examples.
bigdog
2018-07-05 03:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
This comes from years of experience of watching my golf balls curve away
from their intended direction.
Ever see a golf ball rise before falling?
All the time. The rise because they have backspin. Dimples were put on the
golf ball because it increases resistance which creates more rise. Without
dimples giving lift to the ball, golf balls wouldn't fly very high or very
far.
This effect was discovered by accident. The original golf balls were
leather sacks stuffed with feathers. They would have a very smooth surface
when new. Golfers noticed that after their balls became scuffed up through
use they began flying higher and farther. That began the process of
pounding dimples into the leather before forming the ball. That process
has continued through the development of the gutta percha ball, the rubber
core ball, and finally the solid core golf balls in use today.
I wonder when ammunition was lead balls whether they would rise if
they were cut a certain way and given some spin when fired.
To make a lead ball rise you would have to impart backspin. Spin is
imparted to a bullet by the spiraled grooves on the inner surface of the
muzzle. The axis of rotation is going to be on the same line as the
initial direction of the bullet. For spin to cause curving the axis of
rotation must be at an angle to the direction of travel. In a perfectly
struck golf ball, the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the direction
of travel and the only spin will be backspin which gives lift to a ball.
There will be no sidespin at all. The problem in golf is that it is
virtually impossible to consistently strike a ball with no sidespin.
That's why even the best golfers develop swings in which the sidespin is
either left to right or right to left. They will tell you that they can't
consistently hit perfectly straight shots but they can hit 50 in a row
that will curve in the same direction. They won't all curve the same
amount but they will all curve in the same direction. Dustin Johnson who
is currently the #1 ranked player in the world has developed a swing which
reliably curves the ball left to right. He knows if he aims his tee shot
down the left edge of the fairway his ball will curve back toward the
fairway. Since he knows which way his ball is going to curve, he is able
to consistently hit fairways. Even the best of golfers is going to make
bad swings and instead of the ball curving to the right, it curves left.
This is what golfers refer to as a double cross. The shot is aimed
expecting it to curve right but instead it curves to the left and produces
a wildly missed shot. I am all too familiar with this shot.
You seem to have forgotten that at one time when they used actual lead
balls in rifle that the rifles didn't have rifling.
That is true which is why they flew so erratically and were so inaccurate.
They had no spin at all. They traveled like knuckleballs and the
variations in the resistance was due to the imperfections in the bullet
just as a knuckleball behaves in baseball. For those who aren't baseball
fans, a knuckleball is a pitch deliberately thrown with no spin that it's
movement is unpredictable even to the pitcher throwing it and the catcher
trying to catch it. It all depends on how the seams are oriented as it
travels toward home plate. Bob Uecker has joked that the best way to catch
a knuckleball is to wait until it stops rolling and then pick it up.
Getting back to firearms and the JFK assassination, it is rather ludicrous
to think assassins would use a smooth bore musket but since you have them
firing substandard ammo from ridiculous locations, I suppose anything is
possible.
Try using your head for something other than a hammer. We weren't
talking about an actual case, only in the abstract and the rise of a
bullet under certain circumstances.
It is ludicrous to think a bullet is going to rise above the line of the
bore in ANY circumstance. Even ball ammo would need backspin in order to
rise and there is no way to impart that kind of spin when firing a bullet.
If the bore has spiraled grooves as is the case with all modern firearms,
the axis of rotation will be in line with the bore so the bullet is not
going to curve in any direction except as a result of windage. Any
tumbling of a bullet as it exits a smooth bore is not going to be enough
to offset the effects of gravity so it too is going to begin curving below
the line of the bore as soon as it leaves the muzzle.
Silly. You know nothing about guns. The muzzle is aimed upwards to account
for the bullet falling in flight. The moment the bullet leaves the muzzle
it is going above the line of sight, above the muzzle.
No, no, no not only no but hell no. You're embarrassing yourself here.
The moment the bullet leaves the barrel it begins to drop. It is a slight
drop that becomes steeper with more distance. Do I need to explain that
to you too? The only factor you can adjust here is the line of sight.
So it is adjusted DOWN and intersects with the bullet trajectory at 20 to
40 yards and then again at zero. And you tell someone they know nothing
about guns. I chortle.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
Oswald's Carcano had a very HIGH flight profile like Example A. Even with
the M-1 which has a flat trajectory the bullet will be 7.2" above the
point of aim when it's 161 yards from the rifle. Read Emary and learn.
Wouldn't that depend on the distance to the zero General?
I was watching an instructional program on the Golf Channel last night on
putting but the principle applies to bullets as well as golf balls since
both are effected by gravity. The instructor was Martin Hall and he showed
why the apex of a putt is not going to be the same as the aiming point.
Almost all putts are going to have some amount of curve due to the slope
of the green and the effective of gravity. The apex of the path of the
putt is simply the point on that path that is the farthest from a direct
line between the golf ball's initial position and the hole. In order to
role the ball over that apex and make the putt, the aiming point has to be
wider than the apex because gravity will start the ball curving as soon is
it leaves the putter. The line from the ball to the aiming point equates
to the line of the bore. The trajectory of a bullet will have an apex as
well but the line of the bore must point above that apex in order for the
bullet to hit the intended target. The farther the target is from the gun,
the higher above the target the bore must be pointed. To achieve that
adjustable sights and scopes need to be set for a specific distance so
that when the sights are placed on the target the line of the bore will be
pointing a sufficient amount above the target to compensate for gravity.

Again, I know you don't need this explained but it might help those who
seem to be puzzled by this basic principle.
Steve BH
2018-07-05 23:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
This comes from years of experience of watching my golf balls curve away
from their intended direction.
Ever see a golf ball rise before falling?
All the time. The rise because they have backspin. Dimples were put on the
golf ball because it increases resistance which creates more rise. Without
dimples giving lift to the ball, golf balls wouldn't fly very high or very
far.
This effect was discovered by accident. The original golf balls were
leather sacks stuffed with feathers. They would have a very smooth surface
when new. Golfers noticed that after their balls became scuffed up through
use they began flying higher and farther. That began the process of
pounding dimples into the leather before forming the ball. That process
has continued through the development of the gutta percha ball, the rubber
core ball, and finally the solid core golf balls in use today.
I wonder when ammunition was lead balls whether they would rise if
they were cut a certain way and given some spin when fired.
To make a lead ball rise you would have to impart backspin. Spin is
imparted to a bullet by the spiraled grooves on the inner surface of the
muzzle. The axis of rotation is going to be on the same line as the
initial direction of the bullet. For spin to cause curving the axis of
rotation must be at an angle to the direction of travel. In a perfectly
struck golf ball, the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the direction
of travel and the only spin will be backspin which gives lift to a ball.
There will be no sidespin at all. The problem in golf is that it is
virtually impossible to consistently strike a ball with no sidespin.
That's why even the best golfers develop swings in which the sidespin is
either left to right or right to left. They will tell you that they can't
consistently hit perfectly straight shots but they can hit 50 in a row
that will curve in the same direction. They won't all curve the same
amount but they will all curve in the same direction. Dustin Johnson who
is currently the #1 ranked player in the world has developed a swing which
reliably curves the ball left to right. He knows if he aims his tee shot
down the left edge of the fairway his ball will curve back toward the
fairway. Since he knows which way his ball is going to curve, he is able
to consistently hit fairways. Even the best of golfers is going to make
bad swings and instead of the ball curving to the right, it curves left.
This is what golfers refer to as a double cross. The shot is aimed
expecting it to curve right but instead it curves to the left and produces
a wildly missed shot. I am all too familiar with this shot.
You seem to have forgotten that at one time when they used actual lead
balls in rifle that the rifles didn't have rifling.
That is true which is why they flew so erratically and were so inaccurate.
They had no spin at all. They traveled like knuckleballs and the
variations in the resistance was due to the imperfections in the bullet
just as a knuckleball behaves in baseball. For those who aren't baseball
fans, a knuckleball is a pitch deliberately thrown with no spin that it's
movement is unpredictable even to the pitcher throwing it and the catcher
trying to catch it. It all depends on how the seams are oriented as it
travels toward home plate. Bob Uecker has joked that the best way to catch
a knuckleball is to wait until it stops rolling and then pick it up.
Getting back to firearms and the JFK assassination, it is rather ludicrous
to think assassins would use a smooth bore musket but since you have them
firing substandard ammo from ridiculous locations, I suppose anything is
possible.
Try using your head for something other than a hammer. We weren't
talking about an actual case, only in the abstract and the rise of a
bullet under certain circumstances.
It is ludicrous to think a bullet is going to rise above the line of the
bore in ANY circumstance. Even ball ammo would need backspin in order to
rise and there is no way to impart that kind of spin when firing a bullet.
If the bore has spiraled grooves as is the case with all modern firearms,
the axis of rotation will be in line with the bore so the bullet is not
going to curve in any direction except as a result of windage. Any
tumbling of a bullet as it exits a smooth bore is not going to be enough
to offset the effects of gravity so it too is going to begin curving below
the line of the bore as soon as it leaves the muzzle.
Exactly right. Can we move on, now?
bigdog
2018-06-24 20:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understa=
nd
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit =
he=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet up=
on=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What =
he=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet doe=
s=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=
=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended tar=
get=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the mor=
e=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were dr=
awn=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=
=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far mo=
re=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Ma=
rsh=20
is.
=20
=20
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle=
=20
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its=
=20
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned abou=
t=20
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right=20
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder abou=
t=20
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it=
=20
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going=
=20
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the=20
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
=20
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
Outstanding.
I just reread this and I should add a slight correction. Bullets will not
curve left or right due to spin. They can move that way due to windage.
mainframetech
2018-06-22 04:46:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
LOL! Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?

Chris
Mark
2018-06-23 16:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
LOL! Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
Chris
Chris, you should've stopped while you were behind.

Mark
bigdog
2018-06-24 20:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
LOL! Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
Chris
Chris, you should've stopped while you were behind.
Or as the old adage states, "When you find yourself in a hole, quit
digging.".
mainframetech
2018-06-25 02:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
I guess we can add aerodynamics to the long list of subjects about which
you are clueless. A whiffle ball, a baseball, or a golf ball all curve for
the same reason. As they are spinning, one side of the ball is rotating
forward and the other side is rotating backward. The side that is rotating
backward is meeting less resistance than the side that is rotating
forward. The ball moves in the direction of least resistance. The
direction of the curve will depend on the axis of rotation and the
direction of the spin. Backspin makes a ball rise because the top half of
the ball is rotating backward causing less resistance on the top of the
ball. Bullets do not rotate in that manner. Their axis of rotation is in
line with the muzzle of the rifle. It is not going to rise after leaving
the muzzle, nor will it curve left or right. Even if it were possible to
create such a bullet, why would anybody want to?
LOL! Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
Chris
Chris, you should've stopped while you were behind.
Mark
Good idea. Though possible, not reasonable.

Chris
Bill Clarke
2018-06-20 19:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <8a894249-1755-4699-b137-***@googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
Post by mainframetech
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
=20
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he=
=20
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon=
=20
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he=
=20
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does=
=20
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly=20
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended targe=
t=20
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to=20
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more=
=20
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were draw=
n=20
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that=
=20
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving=20
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
=20
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more=
=20
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there=
=20
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Mars=
h=20
is.
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
That all you got? Very weak.
claviger
2018-06-20 19:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
mainframetech
2018-06-22 04:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-23 00:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet
rising?
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-24 00:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit
Not true, buy you may be confusing tumbling with yaw or traveling
sideways. Some bullets do that without ever hitting anything.
You are trying to prop up a hoax theory.
Post by bigdog
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet
rising?
WTF are you talking about?
Bill Clarke
2018-06-25 02:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit
Not true, buy you may be confusing tumbling with yaw or traveling
sideways. Some bullets do that without ever hitting anything.
You are trying to prop up a hoax theory.
All bullets yaw to a certain degree because we, so far, have not been able
to construct the perfect bullet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet
rising?
WTF are you talking about?
I believe he is telling you how goofy it would be to have the bullet rise
as it left the muzzle.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-26 19:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit
Not true, buy you may be confusing tumbling with yaw or traveling
sideways. Some bullets do that without ever hitting anything.
You are trying to prop up a hoax theory.
All bullets yaw to a certain degree because we, so far, have not been able
to construct the perfect bullet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet
rising?
WTF are you talking about?
I believe he is telling you how goofy it would be to have the bullet rise
as it left the muzzle.
So what? Maybe the barrel was made that way or got damaged. He also
wouldn't believe the rifle that shot around corners. Must be sci-fi.
Bill Clarke
2018-06-27 19:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit
Not true, buy you may be confusing tumbling with yaw or traveling
sideways. Some bullets do that without ever hitting anything.
You are trying to prop up a hoax theory.
All bullets yaw to a certain degree because we, so far, have not been able
to construct the perfect bullet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet
rising?
WTF are you talking about?
I believe he is telling you how goofy it would be to have the bullet rise
as it left the muzzle.
So what? Maybe the barrel was made that way or got damaged. He also
wouldn't believe the rifle that shot around corners. Must be sci-fi.
Total and complete BS.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-28 14:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit
Not true, buy you may be confusing tumbling with yaw or traveling
sideways. Some bullets do that without ever hitting anything.
You are trying to prop up a hoax theory.
All bullets yaw to a certain degree because we, so far, have not been able
to construct the perfect bullet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet
rising?
WTF are you talking about?
I believe he is telling you how goofy it would be to have the bullet rise
as it left the muzzle.
So what? Maybe the barrel was made that way or got damaged. He also
wouldn't believe the rifle that shot around corners. Must be sci-fi.
Total and complete BS.
What do you call BS? You don't know about rifles made with a curved
barrel to shoot around corners.
Knowing you you'll misrepresent what I said and claim that I said a
curved barrel was why one shot missed.
OHLeeRedux
2018-06-29 16:09:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit
Not true, buy you may be confusing tumbling with yaw or traveling
sideways. Some bullets do that without ever hitting anything.
You are trying to prop up a hoax theory.
All bullets yaw to a certain degree because we, so far, have not been able
to construct the perfect bullet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet
rising?
WTF are you talking about?
I believe he is telling you how goofy it would be to have the bullet rise
as it left the muzzle.
So what? Maybe the barrel was made that way or got damaged. He also
wouldn't believe the rifle that shot around corners. Must be sci-fi.
Total and complete BS.
What do you call BS? You don't know about rifles made with a curved
barrel to shoot around corners.
Oh my. I know you love your TV, Anthony. But I think you need to lay off
on the old cartoons, because you're starting to believe they're real.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-30 17:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit
Not true, buy you may be confusing tumbling with yaw or traveling
sideways. Some bullets do that without ever hitting anything.
You are trying to prop up a hoax theory.
All bullets yaw to a certain degree because we, so far, have not been able
to construct the perfect bullet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet
rising?
WTF are you talking about?
I believe he is telling you how goofy it would be to have the bullet rise
as it left the muzzle.
So what? Maybe the barrel was made that way or got damaged. He also
wouldn't believe the rifle that shot around corners. Must be sci-fi.
Total and complete BS.
What do you call BS? You don't know about rifles made with a curved
barrel to shoot around corners.
Oh my. I know you love your TV, Anthony. But I think you need to lay off
on the old cartoons, because you're starting to believe they're real.
WTF are you talking about. I'm not making up anything.
Bill Clarke
2018-07-02 00:58:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit
Not true, buy you may be confusing tumbling with yaw or traveling
sideways. Some bullets do that without ever hitting anything.
You are trying to prop up a hoax theory.
All bullets yaw to a certain degree because we, so far, have not been able
to construct the perfect bullet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet
rising?
WTF are you talking about?
I believe he is telling you how goofy it would be to have the bullet rise
as it left the muzzle.
So what? Maybe the barrel was made that way or got damaged. He also
wouldn't believe the rifle that shot around corners. Must be sci-fi.
Total and complete BS.
What do you call BS? You don't know about rifles made with a curved
barrel to shoot around corners.
Oh my. I know you love your TV, Anthony. But I think you need to lay off
on the old cartoons, because you're starting to believe they're real.
WTF are you talking about. I'm not making up anything.
Then show us this rifle with the curved barrel shooting around corners.
Just the picture Marsh and not from a cartoon. Now watch Marsh do his
side step BS.
Bill Clarke
2018-07-09 19:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit
Not true, buy you may be confusing tumbling with yaw or traveling
sideways. Some bullets do that without ever hitting anything.
You are trying to prop up a hoax theory.
All bullets yaw to a certain degree because we, so far, have not been able
to construct the perfect bullet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet
rising?
WTF are you talking about?
I believe he is telling you how goofy it would be to have the bullet rise
as it left the muzzle.
So what? Maybe the barrel was made that way or got damaged. He also
wouldn't believe the rifle that shot around corners. Must be sci-fi.
Total and complete BS.
What do you call BS? You don't know about rifles made with a curved
barrel to shoot around corners.
Oh my. I know you love your TV, Anthony. But I think you need to lay off
on the old cartoons, because you're starting to believe they're real.
WTF are you talking about. I'm not making up anything.
Then show us this rifle with the curved barrel shooting around corners.
Just the picture Marsh and not from a cartoon. Now watch Marsh do his
side step BS.
Sure enough, appears that Marsh is now in hiding. One of his favorite
moves when he has been slapped on a false statement.
Bill Clarke
2018-06-30 01:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit
Not true, buy you may be confusing tumbling with yaw or traveling
sideways. Some bullets do that without ever hitting anything.
You are trying to prop up a hoax theory.
All bullets yaw to a certain degree because we, so far, have not been able
to construct the perfect bullet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet
rising?
WTF are you talking about?
I believe he is telling you how goofy it would be to have the bullet rise
as it left the muzzle.
So what? Maybe the barrel was made that way or got damaged. He also
wouldn't believe the rifle that shot around corners. Must be sci-fi.
Total and complete BS.
What do you call BS? You don't know about rifles made with a curved
barrel to shoot around corners.
Knowing you you'll misrepresent what I said and claim that I said a
curved barrel was why one shot missed.
This is so silly Marsh I'm not even going to comment on it.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-30 21:25:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit
Not true, buy you may be confusing tumbling with yaw or traveling
sideways. Some bullets do that without ever hitting anything.
You are trying to prop up a hoax theory.
All bullets yaw to a certain degree because we, so far, have not been able
to construct the perfect bullet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet
rising?
WTF are you talking about?
I believe he is telling you how goofy it would be to have the bullet rise
as it left the muzzle.
So what? Maybe the barrel was made that way or got damaged. He also
wouldn't believe the rifle that shot around corners. Must be sci-fi.
Total and complete BS.
What do you call BS? You don't know about rifles made with a curved
barrel to shoot around corners.
Knowing you you'll misrepresent what I said and claim that I said a
curved barrel was why one shot missed.
This is so silly Marsh I'm not even going to comment on it.
Because you know you've lost the argument and you know I am smarter than
you are.
OHLeeRedux
2018-07-01 22:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -
Because you know you've lost the argument and you know I am smarter than
you are.


Isn't that what you used to say to your schoolmates right before they
kicked your butt?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-02 17:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -
Because you know you've lost the argument and you know I am smarter than
you are.
Isn't that what you used to say to your schoolmates right before they
kicked your butt?
Wrong. I knew Jujitsu.
Why are you so violent all the time? Did Putin torture you?
Bill Clarke
2018-07-02 00:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit
Not true, buy you may be confusing tumbling with yaw or traveling
sideways. Some bullets do that without ever hitting anything.
You are trying to prop up a hoax theory.
All bullets yaw to a certain degree because we, so far, have not been able
to construct the perfect bullet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet
rising?
WTF are you talking about?
I believe he is telling you how goofy it would be to have the bullet rise
as it left the muzzle.
So what? Maybe the barrel was made that way or got damaged. He also
wouldn't believe the rifle that shot around corners. Must be sci-fi.
Total and complete BS.
What do you call BS? You don't know about rifles made with a curved
barrel to shoot around corners.
Knowing you you'll misrepresent what I said and claim that I said a
curved barrel was why one shot missed.
This is so silly Marsh I'm not even going to comment on it.
Because you know you've lost the argument and you know I am smarter than
you are.
You haven't won until you show us this gun with a curved barrel shooting
around a corner (no cartoon pictures). Show us that Marsh and then you
can say you won. I'm sure you understand why we can't take your word for
it.

A lot of people here are smarter than me. You are not one of them. If
you are so smart how come I've been kicking your butt here for over a
decade?
mainframetech
2018-06-24 00:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet
rising?
You're getting ridiculous again. Get a grip. Bullets or Wiffle balls
will tumble upward if they are made right or sent spinning the right way.
No one said anything about "designing" bullets or aiming a shot to rise.
Don't let you imagination run away with you.


Chris
bigdog
2018-06-24 20:36:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet
rising?
You're getting ridiculous again. Get a grip. Bullets or Wiffle balls
will tumble upward if they are made right or sent spinning the right way.
They rise if they have backspin which is what I said. If you put overspin
on a whiffle ball, it will not rise. It will sink faster than if gravity
was the only force acting on the ball.
Post by mainframetech
No one said anything about "designing" bullets or aiming a shot to rise.
Don't let you imagination run away with you.
You and Marsh need to compare notes because both of you have said no one
is claiming something that the other has said. Earlier today I read Marsh
saying no one had proposed there was a shooter on the opposite side of the
underpass which is one of your pet theories and now you are saying no one
said anything about bullets rising when Marsh has been insisting that is
the case for a long time.
mainframetech
2018-06-26 02:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet
rising?
You're getting ridiculous again. Get a grip. Bullets or Wiffle balls
will tumble upward if they are made right or sent spinning the right way.
They rise if they have backspin which is what I said. If you put overspin
on a whiffle ball, it will not rise. It will sink faster than if gravity
was the only force acting on the ball.
Post by mainframetech
No one said anything about "designing" bullets or aiming a shot to rise.
Don't let you imagination run away with you.
You and Marsh need to compare notes because both of you have said no one
is claiming something that the other has said. Earlier today I read Marsh
saying no one had proposed there was a shooter on the opposite side of the
underpass which is one of your pet theories and now you are saying no one
said anything about bullets rising when Marsh has been insisting that is
the case for a long time.
First, I don't read anything that Marsh puts out, and I certainly
don't respond to him. Second, I have shown you an article showing the 2
bullets that hit JFK from the front and the diagrams and photos supporting
that belief. I'm more in line with that article than the shot from the
storm drain.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-25 02:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet
rising?
You're getting ridiculous again. Get a grip. Bullets or Wiffle balls
will tumble upward if they are made right or sent spinning the right way.
No one said anything about "designing" bullets or aiming a shot to rise.
Don't let you imagination run away with you.
How about if the BARREL was curved?
They used to ha rifle with curved barrels to shoot around corners.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Bill Clarke
2018-06-25 02:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <60383b68-4451-43b4-93bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
Post by mainframetech
=20
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a w=
iffle=20
Post by mainframetech
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards alo=
ng its=20
Post by mainframetech
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learne=
d about=20
Post by mainframetech
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The ri=
ght=20
Post by mainframetech
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonde=
r about=20
Post by mainframetech
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape tha=
t it=20
Post by mainframetech
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without g=
oing=20
Post by mainframetech
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee t=
he=20
Post by mainframetech
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.=20
Chris
=20
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even mor=
e. =20
Post by mainframetech
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
=20
=20
=20
=20
Ever hear of a bullet tumbling?
=20
=20
They don't tumble upward. They also don't tumble until they have hit=20
something first. Who would even try to design a bullet that would rise=20
after leaving the muzzle? Who would aim a shot counting on a bullet=20
rising?
You're getting ridiculous again. Get a grip. Bullets or Wiffle balls
will tumble upward if they are made right or sent spinning the right way.
No one said anything about "designing" bullets or aiming a shot to rise.
Don't let you imagination run away with you.
Chris
I'll bow to your expertise concerning wiffle balls. Bullets....not so
much.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-22 23:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
All these wise gunmen! For my part, I always wondered about a wiffle
ball, than when you threw it a certain way, it would go upwards along its
path to the destination. That was when I was a boy. Later I learned about
the effect in air when a flying object has a certain shape. The right
shape can cause the ball to rise as it flies. That led me to wonder about
whether a bullet could be constructed with just the right shape that it
would rise out of the barrel at least for some distance. Without going
into the physics, my guess is that it would indeed rise if it wee the
right shape. Especially if it were tumbling the right way.
Chris
Maybe a wiffle bullet made out of plastic. Wings would help even more.
Otherwise lead bullets obey the Law of Gravity.
SHH! You are not cleared to learn about plastic bullets.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-23 00:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
Bill Clarke
2018-06-24 00:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-25 02:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
Bill Clarke
2018-06-25 18:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
bigdog
2018-06-26 14:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
He also doesn't know what Colonel Whelan is talking about.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-27 02:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
He also doesn't know what Colonel Whelan is talking about.
YOU'VE never even read the book. I had to search the rare book
collection at the Boston Public Library to find it. YOU can't find it.
You can't even find your socks.
Bill Clarke
2018-06-27 20:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <b0c69739-2a8f-4b72-af96-***@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
He also doesn't know what Colonel Whelan is talking about.
The poor man has Whelan's article on his web page but doesn't have a clue.
Not a clue.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-28 14:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
He also doesn't know what Colonel Whelan is talking about.
The poor man has Whelan's article on his web page but doesn't have a clue.
Not a clue.
You don't have anything on your web page because you don't have any facts.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-26 19:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Bill Clarke
2018-06-27 20:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-28 14:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Bill Clarke
2018-06-30 01:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-30 21:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Empty threat. First prove that I said anything false. Be specific.
Bill Clarke
2018-07-02 00:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Empty threat. First prove that I said anything false. Be specific.
For a recent one how about your claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men a month
home from Vietnam. Completely and totally FALSE.

The offer still stands.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-02 17:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Empty threat. First prove that I said anything false. Be specific.
For a recent one how about your claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men a month
home from Vietnam. Completely and totally FALSE.
Go to the JFK Library and listen to the tapes.
Post by Bill Clarke
The offer still stands.
Bill Clarke
2018-07-03 20:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Empty threat. First prove that I said anything false. Be specific.
For a recent one how about your claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men a month
home from Vietnam. Completely and totally FALSE.
Go to the JFK Library and listen to the tapes.
Nice try General. Weak but still you tried.

The offer still stands.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-04 13:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Empty threat. First prove that I said anything false. Be specific.
For a recent one how about your claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men a month
home from Vietnam. Completely and totally FALSE.
Go to the JFK Library and listen to the tapes.
Nice try General. Weak but still you tried.
The offer still stands.
You still can't do research.
Bill Clarke
2018-07-05 23:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Empty threat. First prove that I said anything false. Be specific.
For a recent one how about your claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men a month
home from Vietnam. Completely and totally FALSE.
Go to the JFK Library and listen to the tapes.
Nice try General. Weak but still you tried.
The offer still stands.
You still can't do research.
And you can't understand the research you do find and you make false
statements about it. I might add, Marsh, that if Kennedy had ordered
1,000 men a month be withdrawn from Vietnam I wouldn't have to go to the
library. The order would be even more famous than NSAM 263 and would be
all over the internet. So what you got now?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-07 12:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Empty threat. First prove that I said anything false. Be specific.
For a recent one how about your claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men a month
home from Vietnam. Completely and totally FALSE.
Go to the JFK Library and listen to the tapes.
Nice try General. Weak but still you tried.
The offer still stands.
You still can't do research.
And you can't understand the research you do find and you make false
statements about it. I might add, Marsh, that if Kennedy had ordered
1,000 men a month be withdrawn from Vietnam I wouldn't have to go to the
library. The order would be even more famous than NSAM 263 and would be
all over the internet. So what you got now?
False. It was all over the InterNet because I was the one who posted it
to the InerNet. But you can never admit any fact.
You didn't even know about it until I posted it.
Bill Clarke
2018-07-09 19:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Empty threat. First prove that I said anything false. Be specific.
For a recent one how about your claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men a month
home from Vietnam. Completely and totally FALSE.
Go to the JFK Library and listen to the tapes.
Nice try General. Weak but still you tried.
The offer still stands.
You still can't do research.
And you can't understand the research you do find and you make false
statements about it. I might add, Marsh, that if Kennedy had ordered
1,000 men a month be withdrawn from Vietnam I wouldn't have to go to the
library. The order would be even more famous than NSAM 263 and would be
all over the internet. So what you got now?
False. It was all over the InterNet because I was the one who posted it
to the InerNet. But you can never admit any fact.
You didn't even know about it until I posted it.
So then allow us to view this amazing order than not even Jones or
Galbraith or DiEugenio even speak of. Even your own Camelot Shiners won't
make such a silly suggestion.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-10 19:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Empty threat. First prove that I said anything false. Be specific.
For a recent one how about your claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men a month
home from Vietnam. Completely and totally FALSE.
Go to the JFK Library and listen to the tapes.
Nice try General. Weak but still you tried.
The offer still stands.
You still can't do research.
And you can't understand the research you do find and you make false
statements about it. I might add, Marsh, that if Kennedy had ordered
1,000 men a month be withdrawn from Vietnam I wouldn't have to go to the
library. The order would be even more famous than NSAM 263 and would be
all over the internet. So what you got now?
False. It was all over the InterNet because I was the one who posted it
to the InerNet. But you can never admit any fact.
You didn't even know about it until I posted it.
So then allow us to view this amazing order than not even Jones or
Galbraith or DiEugenio even speak of. Even your own Camelot Shiners won't
make such a silly suggestion.
I already posted it, but you're not smart enough to understand it.
NSAM 263.

Loading Image...
Bill Clarke
2018-07-12 02:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Empty threat. First prove that I said anything false. Be specific.
For a recent one how about your claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men a month
home from Vietnam. Completely and totally FALSE.
Go to the JFK Library and listen to the tapes.
Nice try General. Weak but still you tried.
The offer still stands.
You still can't do research.
And you can't understand the research you do find and you make false
statements about it. I might add, Marsh, that if Kennedy had ordered
1,000 men a month be withdrawn from Vietnam I wouldn't have to go to the
library. The order would be even more famous than NSAM 263 and would be
all over the internet. So what you got now?
False. It was all over the InterNet because I was the one who posted it
to the InerNet. But you can never admit any fact.
You didn't even know about it until I posted it.
So then allow us to view this amazing order than not even Jones or
Galbraith or DiEugenio even speak of. Even your own Camelot Shiners won't
make such a silly suggestion.
I already posted it, but you're not smart enough to understand it.
NSAM 263.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/nsam263.jpg
Another false statement by Marsh. Now Marsh has gone full circle with his
false statements. He started out with NSAM 263. When that didn't work he
went to the McNamara Taylor Report. When that didn't work he ran all over
the place with more false statements. And today he is back to NSAM 263.
Marsh is like the rabbit...he runs in circles.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-13 14:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Empty threat. First prove that I said anything false. Be specific.
For a recent one how about your claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men a month
home from Vietnam. Completely and totally FALSE.
Go to the JFK Library and listen to the tapes.
Nice try General. Weak but still you tried.
The offer still stands.
You still can't do research.
And you can't understand the research you do find and you make false
statements about it. I might add, Marsh, that if Kennedy had ordered
1,000 men a month be withdrawn from Vietnam I wouldn't have to go to the
library. The order would be even more famous than NSAM 263 and would be
all over the internet. So what you got now?
False. It was all over the InterNet because I was the one who posted it
to the InerNet. But you can never admit any fact.
You didn't even know about it until I posted it.
So then allow us to view this amazing order than not even Jones or
Galbraith or DiEugenio even speak of. Even your own Camelot Shiners won't
make such a silly suggestion.
I already posted it, but you're not smart enough to understand it.
NSAM 263.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/nsam263.jpg
Another false statement by Marsh. Now Marsh has gone full circle with his
false statements. He started out with NSAM 263. When that didn't work he
went to the McNamara Taylor Report. When that didn't work he ran all over
the place with more false statements. And today he is back to NSAM 263.
Marsh is like the rabbit...he runs in circles.
False. You just proved my point for me. NSAM 263 references and APPROVES
the recommendations in the McNamara Taylor report so you have to read it
to understand NSAM 263. You couldn't because you can't do any research and
it was not online. So I got it and put it online.

But you refuse to read anything I post, so you missed the context.
Bill Clarke
2018-07-14 20:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Empty threat. First prove that I said anything false. Be specific.
For a recent one how about your claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men a month
home from Vietnam. Completely and totally FALSE.
Go to the JFK Library and listen to the tapes.
Nice try General. Weak but still you tried.
The offer still stands.
You still can't do research.
And you can't understand the research you do find and you make false
statements about it. I might add, Marsh, that if Kennedy had ordered
1,000 men a month be withdrawn from Vietnam I wouldn't have to go to the
library. The order would be even more famous than NSAM 263 and would be
all over the internet. So what you got now?
False. It was all over the InterNet because I was the one who posted it
to the InerNet. But you can never admit any fact.
You didn't even know about it until I posted it.
So then allow us to view this amazing order than not even Jones or
Galbraith or DiEugenio even speak of. Even your own Camelot Shiners won't
make such a silly suggestion.
I already posted it, but you're not smart enough to understand it.
NSAM 263.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/nsam263.jpg
Another false statement by Marsh. Now Marsh has gone full circle with his
false statements. He started out with NSAM 263. When that didn't work he
went to the McNamara Taylor Report. When that didn't work he ran all over
the place with more false statements. And today he is back to NSAM 263.
Marsh is like the rabbit...he runs in circles.
False. You just proved my point for me.
Your point is a false statement. In fact, most of your points here are
false. I'll go slow here for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
NSAM 263 references and APPROVES the recommendations in the McNamara Taylor
report
False statement by Marsh. NSAM 263 approves ONLY Section 1, B, (1-3)of
the report. There were other recommendations in the M/T report that the
president did NOT approve.
Post by Anthony Marsh
so you have to read it to understand NSAM 263.
Another false statement by Marsh. The only part you have to read, as far
as NSAM 263 is concerned, is Section 1, B, (1-3). Nice to read the entire
report as I have from your web page but not necessary. The most important
document to understanding NSAM 263 is the tape of the NSC meeting when
they discussed the drafting of NSAM 263. I've referenced this one for you
many times but apparently you can't read it since you still don't
understand about"Normal Rotation". I chuckle.

You couldn't because you can't do any research and
Post by Anthony Marsh
it was not online. So I got it and put it online.
More horse apples by Marsh.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-15 21:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Empty threat. First prove that I said anything false. Be specific.
For a recent one how about your claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men a month
home from Vietnam. Completely and totally FALSE.
Go to the JFK Library and listen to the tapes.
Nice try General. Weak but still you tried.
The offer still stands.
You still can't do research.
And you can't understand the research you do find and you make false
statements about it. I might add, Marsh, that if Kennedy had ordered
1,000 men a month be withdrawn from Vietnam I wouldn't have to go to the
library. The order would be even more famous than NSAM 263 and would be
all over the internet. So what you got now?
False. It was all over the InterNet because I was the one who posted it
to the InerNet. But you can never admit any fact.
You didn't even know about it until I posted it.
So then allow us to view this amazing order than not even Jones or
Galbraith or DiEugenio even speak of. Even your own Camelot Shiners won't
make such a silly suggestion.
I already posted it, but you're not smart enough to understand it.
NSAM 263.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/nsam263.jpg
Another false statement by Marsh. Now Marsh has gone full circle with his
false statements. He started out with NSAM 263. When that didn't work he
went to the McNamara Taylor Report. When that didn't work he ran all over
the place with more false statements. And today he is back to NSAM 263.
Marsh is like the rabbit...he runs in circles.
False. You just proved my point for me.
Your point is a false statement. In fact, most of your points here are
false. I'll go slow here for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
NSAM 263 references and APPROVES the recommendations in the McNamara Taylor
report
False statement by Marsh. NSAM 263 approves ONLY Section 1, B, (1-3)of
the report. There were other recommendations in the M/T report that the
president did NOT approve.
So what? It says he approves the withdrawal of 1,000 troops, but
instructs them to not make it public yet.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
so you have to read it to understand NSAM 263.
Another false statement by Marsh. The only part you have to read, as far
as NSAM 263 is concerned, is Section 1, B, (1-3). Nice to read the entire
report as I have from your web page but not necessary. The most important
document to understanding NSAM 263 is the tape of the NSC meeting when
I post it for you because you had no way of finding it. You can't even
find the National Archives and that's a long trip for just one document.
You're welcome.


National Security Action Memorandum 263
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search

National Security Action Memorandum Number 263 (NSAM-263) was a national
security directive approved on 11 October 1963 by United States President
John F. Kennedy. The NSAM approved recommendations by Secretary of Defense
Robert McNamara and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Maxwell
Taylor. McNamara and Taylor's recommendations included an appraisal that
"great progress" was being made in the Vietnam War against Viet Cong
insurgents, that 1,000 military personnel could be withdrawn from South
Vietnam by the end of 1963, and that a "major part of the U.S. military
task can be completed by the end of 1965." The U.S. at this time had more
than 16,000 military personnel in South Vietnam.

NSAM-263 has served as an important source for many authors who have
claimed that President Kennedy planned to withdraw U.S. military forces
from Vietnam and would have completed the withdrawal after achieving
reelection in 1964.[1]

Contents

1 Background
2 NSAM 263
3 Impact and Controversy
4 See also
5 References
6 External links

Background

In September 1963, South Vietnam was in the midst of a political crisis
and U.S. policymakers were in disagreement about how to proceed. The
brutal repression of anti-government demonstrations had eroded support for
the government of President Ngo Dinh Diem in both South Vietnam and the
United States. Kennedy's new Ambassador in Saigon, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr.,
was expressing support for South Vietnamese military leaders who wished to
overthrow the Diem government. At the same time, however, the head of the
U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV), General Paul D. Harkins
claimed that the military situation was improving in the war against the
insurgent Viet Cong [2]

To assess the situation, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Maxwell Taylor visited South
Vietnam from September 23, to October 2. President Kennedy instructed them
to produce "the best possible on-the-spot appraisal of the military and
paramilitary effort to defeat the Viet Cong."[3] The report that McNamara
and Taylor submitted to the President said that "the military campaign has
made great progress" and cited "present favorable military
trends."McNamara and Taylor also concluded "there is no solid evidence of
the possibility of a successful coup" against the Diem government.[4]

McNamara and Taylor recommended that the U.S. persuade the South
Vietnamese to make a number of changes in its military effort "to complete
the military campaign by the end of 1965 which would enable the U.S. to
"withdraw to the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time." McNamara and Taylor
supported a plan (proposed by McNamara in July 1963) to withdraw 1,000
U.S. military personnel from South Vietnam by the end of 1963. Other
recommendations were to suspend or reduce economic aid programs to South
Vietnam as a sign of U.S. dissatisfaction with the Diem government and to
pressure Diem into making necessary reforms.[5] The White House issued a
public statement on October 2, declaring its intention to withdraw 1,000
soldiers from Vietnam by the end of 1963.[6] and the same announcement was
made in Saigon by MACV on 16 October.[7]

On October 5, after meetings of McNamara and Taylor with President Kennedy
and acting on the McNamara/Taylor recommendations, the Department of State
with Kennedy's approval instructed Ambassador Lodge in South Vietnam to
press President Di???m on a number of issues. Pending favorable action of
the part of Di???m, some economic aid programs would be suspended which,
in the view of the State Department, would not have an adverse impact on
the war against the Viet Cong for two to four months. Among other things,
Di???m was to be enjoined to cease criticism of the United States and to
focus on a serious military situation in the Mekong Delta. His strategy
should be to hold territory and protect the rural population rather than
having the ARVN undertake military sweeps of only temporary value.[8]

NSAM 263

National Security Action Memorandum No. 263 was approved by President
Kennedy on 11 October. NSAM 263 accepted the military recommendations of
McNamara and Taylor, as follows: (1) changes to be accomplished by the
government of South Vietnam to improve its military performance; (2) a
training program for Vietnamese "so that essential functions can be
carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to
withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time"; and (3) withdrawal as
previously planned of 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
NSAM 263 specifies that no formal announcement be made of the
withdrawal.[9]
Post by Bill Clarke
they discussed the drafting of NSAM 263. I've referenced this one for you
many times but apparently you can't read it since you still don't
understand about"Normal Rotation". I chuckle.
You know where you can shove your normal rotation. That is not what JFK
said. That is what the cover-up says to CYA.
Post by Bill Clarke
You couldn't because you can't do any research and
Post by Anthony Marsh
it was not online. So I got it and put it online.
More horse apples by Marsh.
Fact: You didn't have it. You've never been inside the National Archives
and you've never filed an FOIA request.

All you have is bluff and bluster and you're running low on bluster.
Bill Clarke
2018-07-16 23:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Empty threat. First prove that I said anything false. Be specific.
For a recent one how about your claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men a month
home from Vietnam. Completely and totally FALSE.
Go to the JFK Library and listen to the tapes.
Nice try General. Weak but still you tried.
The offer still stands.
You still can't do research.
And you can't understand the research you do find and you make false
statements about it. I might add, Marsh, that if Kennedy had ordered
1,000 men a month be withdrawn from Vietnam I wouldn't have to go to the
library. The order would be even more famous than NSAM 263 and would be
all over the internet. So what you got now?
False. It was all over the InterNet because I was the one who posted it
to the InerNet. But you can never admit any fact.
You didn't even know about it until I posted it.
So then allow us to view this amazing order than not even Jones or
Galbraith or DiEugenio even speak of. Even your own Camelot Shiners won't
make such a silly suggestion.
I already posted it, but you're not smart enough to understand it.
NSAM 263.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/nsam263.jpg
Another false statement by Marsh. Now Marsh has gone full circle with his
false statements. He started out with NSAM 263. When that didn't work he
went to the McNamara Taylor Report. When that didn't work he ran all over
the place with more false statements. And today he is back to NSAM 263.
Marsh is like the rabbit...he runs in circles.
False. You just proved my point for me.
Your point is a false statement. In fact, most of your points here are
false. I'll go slow here for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
NSAM 263 references and APPROVES the recommendations in the McNamara Taylor
report
False statement by Marsh. NSAM 263 approves ONLY Section 1, B, (1-3)of
the report. There were other recommendations in the M/T report that the
president did NOT approve.
So what? It says he approves the withdrawal of 1,000 troops, but
instructs them to not make it public yet.
Here is "so what" Marsh. You are referring to #3. Please see above;
"NSAM 263 approves ONLY Section 1, B, (1-3)of the report".
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
so you have to read it to understand NSAM 263.
Another false statement by Marsh. The only part you have to read, as far
as NSAM 263 is concerned, is Section 1, B, (1-3). Nice to read the entire
report as I have from your web page but not necessary. The most important
document to understanding NSAM 263 is the tape of the NSC meeting when
I post it for you because you had no way of finding it. You can't even
find the National Archives and that's a long trip for just one document.
You're welcome.
So does the National Archives have the order from JFK withdrawing 1,000
men per month from Vietnam? I chortle.
Post by Anthony Marsh
National Security Action Memorandum 263
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
National Security Action Memorandum Number 263 (NSAM-263) was a national
security directive approved on 11 October 1963 by United States President
John F. Kennedy. The NSAM approved recommendations by Secretary of Defense
Robert McNamara and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Maxwell
Taylor. McNamara and Taylor's recommendations included an appraisal that
"great progress" was being made in the Vietnam War against Viet Cong
insurgents, that 1,000 military personnel could be withdrawn from South
Vietnam by the end of 1963, and that a "major part of the U.S. military
task can be completed by the end of 1965." The U.S. at this time had more
than 16,000 military personnel in South Vietnam.
NSAM-263 has served as an important source for many authors who have
claimed that President Kennedy planned to withdraw U.S. military forces
from Vietnam and would have completed the withdrawal after achieving
reelection in 1964.[1]
Contents
1 Background
2 NSAM 263
3 Impact and Controversy
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Background
In September 1963, South Vietnam was in the midst of a political crisis
and U.S. policymakers were in disagreement about how to proceed. The
brutal repression of anti-government demonstrations had eroded support for
the government of President Ngo Dinh Diem in both South Vietnam and the
United States. Kennedy's new Ambassador in Saigon, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr.,
was expressing support for South Vietnamese military leaders who wished to
overthrow the Diem government. At the same time, however, the head of the
U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV), General Paul D. Harkins
claimed that the military situation was improving in the war against the
insurgent Viet Cong [2]
To assess the situation, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Maxwell Taylor visited South
Vietnam from September 23, to October 2. President Kennedy instructed them
to produce "the best possible on-the-spot appraisal of the military and
paramilitary effort to defeat the Viet Cong."[3] The report that McNamara
and Taylor submitted to the President said that "the military campaign has
made great progress" and cited "present favorable military
trends."McNamara and Taylor also concluded "there is no solid evidence of
the possibility of a successful coup" against the Diem government.[4]
McNamara and Taylor recommended that the U.S. persuade the South
Vietnamese to make a number of changes in its military effort "to complete
the military campaign by the end of 1965 which would enable the U.S. to
"withdraw to the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time." McNamara and Taylor
supported a plan (proposed by McNamara in July 1963) to withdraw 1,000
U.S. military personnel from South Vietnam by the end of 1963. Other
recommendations were to suspend or reduce economic aid programs to South
Vietnam as a sign of U.S. dissatisfaction with the Diem government and to
pressure Diem into making necessary reforms.[5] The White House issued a
public statement on October 2, declaring its intention to withdraw 1,000
soldiers from Vietnam by the end of 1963.[6] and the same announcement was
made in Saigon by MACV on 16 October.[7]
On October 5, after meetings of McNamara and Taylor with President Kennedy
and acting on the McNamara/Taylor recommendations, the Department of State
with Kennedy's approval instructed Ambassador Lodge in South Vietnam to
press President Di???m on a number of issues. Pending favorable action of
the part of Di???m, some economic aid programs would be suspended which,
in the view of the State Department, would not have an adverse impact on
the war against the Viet Cong for two to four months. Among other things,
Di???m was to be enjoined to cease criticism of the United States and to
focus on a serious military situation in the Mekong Delta. His strategy
should be to hold territory and protect the rural population rather than
having the ARVN undertake military sweeps of only temporary value.[8]
NSAM 263
National Security Action Memorandum No. 263 was approved by President
Kennedy on 11 October. NSAM 263 accepted the military recommendations of
McNamara and Taylor, as follows: (1) changes to be accomplished by the
government of South Vietnam to improve its military performance; (2) a
training program for Vietnamese "so that essential functions can be
carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to
withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time"; and (3) withdrawal as
previously planned of 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
NSAM 263 specifies that no formal announcement be made of the
withdrawal.[9]
Post by Bill Clarke
they discussed the drafting of NSAM 263. I've referenced this one for you
many times but apparently you can't read it since you still don't
understand about"Normal Rotation". I chuckle.
You know where you can shove your normal rotation. That is not what JFK
said. That is what the cover-up says to CYA.
Another false statement by Marsh. Boy howdy, you are just full of them
aren't you. It is on tape. You can hear both JFK and McNamara discussing
and agreeing to withdraw the 1,000 men by normal rotation. I know this
upsets you but facts are facts Marsh. Budt facts don'td concern you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
You couldn't because you can't do any research and
Post by Anthony Marsh
it was not online. So I got it and put it online.
More horse apples by Marsh.
Fact: You didn't have it. You've never been inside the National Archives
and you've never filed an FOIA request.
All you have is bluff and bluster and you're running low on bluster.
What I have shown Marsh, for many years now, are undeniable facts that
blow your false statements out of the water.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-17 21:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Empty threat. First prove that I said anything false. Be specific.
For a recent one how about your claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men a month
home from Vietnam. Completely and totally FALSE.
Go to the JFK Library and listen to the tapes.
Nice try General. Weak but still you tried.
The offer still stands.
You still can't do research.
And you can't understand the research you do find and you make false
statements about it. I might add, Marsh, that if Kennedy had ordered
1,000 men a month be withdrawn from Vietnam I wouldn't have to go to the
library. The order would be even more famous than NSAM 263 and would be
all over the internet. So what you got now?
False. It was all over the InterNet because I was the one who posted it
to the InerNet. But you can never admit any fact.
You didn't even know about it until I posted it.
So then allow us to view this amazing order than not even Jones or
Galbraith or DiEugenio even speak of. Even your own Camelot Shiners won't
make such a silly suggestion.
I already posted it, but you're not smart enough to understand it.
NSAM 263.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/nsam263.jpg
Another false statement by Marsh. Now Marsh has gone full circle with his
false statements. He started out with NSAM 263. When that didn't work he
went to the McNamara Taylor Report. When that didn't work he ran all over
the place with more false statements. And today he is back to NSAM 263.
Marsh is like the rabbit...he runs in circles.
False. You just proved my point for me.
Your point is a false statement. In fact, most of your points here are
false. I'll go slow here for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
NSAM 263 references and APPROVES the recommendations in the McNamara Taylor
report
False statement by Marsh. NSAM 263 approves ONLY Section 1, B, (1-3)of
the report. There were other recommendations in the M/T report that the
president did NOT approve.
So what? It says he approves the withdrawal of 1,000 troops, but
instructs them to not make it public yet.
Here is "so what" Marsh. You are referring to #3. Please see above;
"NSAM 263 approves ONLY Section 1, B, (1-3)of the report".
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
so you have to read it to understand NSAM 263.
Another false statement by Marsh. The only part you have to read, as far
as NSAM 263 is concerned, is Section 1, B, (1-3). Nice to read the entire
report as I have from your web page but not necessary. The most important
document to understanding NSAM 263 is the tape of the NSC meeting when
I post it for you because you had no way of finding it. You can't even
find the National Archives and that's a long trip for just one document.
You're welcome.
So does the National Archives have the order from JFK withdrawing 1,000
men per month from Vietnam? I chortle.
Post by Anthony Marsh
National Security Action Memorandum 263
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
National Security Action Memorandum Number 263 (NSAM-263) was a national
security directive approved on 11 October 1963 by United States President
John F. Kennedy. The NSAM approved recommendations by Secretary of Defense
Robert McNamara and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Maxwell
Taylor. McNamara and Taylor's recommendations included an appraisal that
"great progress" was being made in the Vietnam War against Viet Cong
insurgents, that 1,000 military personnel could be withdrawn from South
Vietnam by the end of 1963, and that a "major part of the U.S. military
task can be completed by the end of 1965." The U.S. at this time had more
than 16,000 military personnel in South Vietnam.
NSAM-263 has served as an important source for many authors who have
claimed that President Kennedy planned to withdraw U.S. military forces
from Vietnam and would have completed the withdrawal after achieving
reelection in 1964.[1]
Contents
1 Background
2 NSAM 263
3 Impact and Controversy
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Background
In September 1963, South Vietnam was in the midst of a political crisis
and U.S. policymakers were in disagreement about how to proceed. The
brutal repression of anti-government demonstrations had eroded support for
the government of President Ngo Dinh Diem in both South Vietnam and the
United States. Kennedy's new Ambassador in Saigon, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr.,
was expressing support for South Vietnamese military leaders who wished to
overthrow the Diem government. At the same time, however, the head of the
U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV), General Paul D. Harkins
claimed that the military situation was improving in the war against the
insurgent Viet Cong [2]
To assess the situation, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Maxwell Taylor visited South
Vietnam from September 23, to October 2. President Kennedy instructed them
to produce "the best possible on-the-spot appraisal of the military and
paramilitary effort to defeat the Viet Cong."[3] The report that McNamara
and Taylor submitted to the President said that "the military campaign has
made great progress" and cited "present favorable military
trends."McNamara and Taylor also concluded "there is no solid evidence of
the possibility of a successful coup" against the Diem government.[4]
McNamara and Taylor recommended that the U.S. persuade the South
Vietnamese to make a number of changes in its military effort "to complete
the military campaign by the end of 1965 which would enable the U.S. to
"withdraw to the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time." McNamara and Taylor
supported a plan (proposed by McNamara in July 1963) to withdraw 1,000
U.S. military personnel from South Vietnam by the end of 1963. Other
recommendations were to suspend or reduce economic aid programs to South
Vietnam as a sign of U.S. dissatisfaction with the Diem government and to
pressure Diem into making necessary reforms.[5] The White House issued a
public statement on October 2, declaring its intention to withdraw 1,000
soldiers from Vietnam by the end of 1963.[6] and the same announcement was
made in Saigon by MACV on 16 October.[7]
On October 5, after meetings of McNamara and Taylor with President Kennedy
and acting on the McNamara/Taylor recommendations, the Department of State
with Kennedy's approval instructed Ambassador Lodge in South Vietnam to
press President Di???m on a number of issues. Pending favorable action of
the part of Di???m, some economic aid programs would be suspended which,
in the view of the State Department, would not have an adverse impact on
the war against the Viet Cong for two to four months. Among other things,
Di???m was to be enjoined to cease criticism of the United States and to
focus on a serious military situation in the Mekong Delta. His strategy
should be to hold territory and protect the rural population rather than
having the ARVN undertake military sweeps of only temporary value.[8]
NSAM 263
National Security Action Memorandum No. 263 was approved by President
Kennedy on 11 October. NSAM 263 accepted the military recommendations of
McNamara and Taylor, as follows: (1) changes to be accomplished by the
government of South Vietnam to improve its military performance; (2) a
training program for Vietnamese "so that essential functions can be
carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to
withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time"; and (3) withdrawal as
previously planned of 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
NSAM 263 specifies that no formal announcement be made of the
withdrawal.[9]
Post by Bill Clarke
they discussed the drafting of NSAM 263. I've referenced this one for you
many times but apparently you can't read it since you still don't
understand about"Normal Rotation". I chuckle.
You know where you can shove your normal rotation. That is not what JFK
said. That is what the cover-up says to CYA.
Another false statement by Marsh. Boy howdy, you are just full of them
aren't you. It is on tape. You can hear both JFK and McNamara discussing
and agreeing to withdraw the 1,000 men by normal rotation. I know this
upsets you but facts are facts Marsh. Budt facts don'td concern you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
You couldn't because you can't do any research and
Post by Anthony Marsh
it was not online. So I got it and put it online.
More horse apples by Marsh.
Fact: You didn't have it. You've never been inside the National Archives
and you've never filed an FOIA request.
All you have is bluff and bluster and you're running low on bluster.
What I have shown Marsh, for many years now, are undeniable facts that
blow your false statements out of the water.
I am correct in what I said. You've never been inside the National
Archives and you've never filed an FOIA request.

If you have any proof that you have, post it.
Bill Clarke
2018-07-19 02:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Empty threat. First prove that I said anything false. Be specific.
For a recent one how about your claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men a month
home from Vietnam. Completely and totally FALSE.
Go to the JFK Library and listen to the tapes.
Nice try General. Weak but still you tried.
The offer still stands.
You still can't do research.
And you can't understand the research you do find and you make false
statements about it. I might add, Marsh, that if Kennedy had ordered
1,000 men a month be withdrawn from Vietnam I wouldn't have to go to the
library. The order would be even more famous than NSAM 263 and would be
all over the internet. So what you got now?
False. It was all over the InterNet because I was the one who posted it
to the InerNet. But you can never admit any fact.
You didn't even know about it until I posted it.
So then allow us to view this amazing order than not even Jones or
Galbraith or DiEugenio even speak of. Even your own Camelot Shiners won't
make such a silly suggestion.
I already posted it, but you're not smart enough to understand it.
NSAM 263.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/nsam263.jpg
Another false statement by Marsh. Now Marsh has gone full circle with his
false statements. He started out with NSAM 263. When that didn't work he
went to the McNamara Taylor Report. When that didn't work he ran all over
the place with more false statements. And today he is back to NSAM 263.
Marsh is like the rabbit...he runs in circles.
False. You just proved my point for me.
Your point is a false statement. In fact, most of your points here are
false. I'll go slow here for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
NSAM 263 references and APPROVES the recommendations in the McNamara Taylor
report
False statement by Marsh. NSAM 263 approves ONLY Section 1, B, (1-3)of
the report. There were other recommendations in the M/T report that the
president did NOT approve.
So what? It says he approves the withdrawal of 1,000 troops, but
instructs them to not make it public yet.
Here is "so what" Marsh. You are referring to #3. Please see above;
"NSAM 263 approves ONLY Section 1, B, (1-3)of the report".
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
so you have to read it to understand NSAM 263.
Another false statement by Marsh. The only part you have to read, as far
as NSAM 263 is concerned, is Section 1, B, (1-3). Nice to read the entire
report as I have from your web page but not necessary. The most important
document to understanding NSAM 263 is the tape of the NSC meeting when
I post it for you because you had no way of finding it. You can't even
find the National Archives and that's a long trip for just one document.
You're welcome.
So does the National Archives have the order from JFK withdrawing 1,000
men per month from Vietnam? I chortle.
Post by Anthony Marsh
National Security Action Memorandum 263
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
National Security Action Memorandum Number 263 (NSAM-263) was a national
security directive approved on 11 October 1963 by United States President
John F. Kennedy. The NSAM approved recommendations by Secretary of Defense
Robert McNamara and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Maxwell
Taylor. McNamara and Taylor's recommendations included an appraisal that
"great progress" was being made in the Vietnam War against Viet Cong
insurgents, that 1,000 military personnel could be withdrawn from South
Vietnam by the end of 1963, and that a "major part of the U.S. military
task can be completed by the end of 1965." The U.S. at this time had more
than 16,000 military personnel in South Vietnam.
NSAM-263 has served as an important source for many authors who have
claimed that President Kennedy planned to withdraw U.S. military forces
from Vietnam and would have completed the withdrawal after achieving
reelection in 1964.[1]
Contents
1 Background
2 NSAM 263
3 Impact and Controversy
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Background
In September 1963, South Vietnam was in the midst of a political crisis
and U.S. policymakers were in disagreement about how to proceed. The
brutal repression of anti-government demonstrations had eroded support for
the government of President Ngo Dinh Diem in both South Vietnam and the
United States. Kennedy's new Ambassador in Saigon, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr.,
was expressing support for South Vietnamese military leaders who wished to
overthrow the Diem government. At the same time, however, the head of the
U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV), General Paul D. Harkins
claimed that the military situation was improving in the war against the
insurgent Viet Cong [2]
To assess the situation, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Maxwell Taylor visited South
Vietnam from September 23, to October 2. President Kennedy instructed them
to produce "the best possible on-the-spot appraisal of the military and
paramilitary effort to defeat the Viet Cong."[3] The report that McNamara
and Taylor submitted to the President said that "the military campaign has
made great progress" and cited "present favorable military
trends."McNamara and Taylor also concluded "there is no solid evidence of
the possibility of a successful coup" against the Diem government.[4]
McNamara and Taylor recommended that the U.S. persuade the South
Vietnamese to make a number of changes in its military effort "to complete
the military campaign by the end of 1965 which would enable the U.S. to
"withdraw to the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time." McNamara and Taylor
supported a plan (proposed by McNamara in July 1963) to withdraw 1,000
U.S. military personnel from South Vietnam by the end of 1963. Other
recommendations were to suspend or reduce economic aid programs to South
Vietnam as a sign of U.S. dissatisfaction with the Diem government and to
pressure Diem into making necessary reforms.[5] The White House issued a
public statement on October 2, declaring its intention to withdraw 1,000
soldiers from Vietnam by the end of 1963.[6] and the same announcement was
made in Saigon by MACV on 16 October.[7]
On October 5, after meetings of McNamara and Taylor with President Kennedy
and acting on the McNamara/Taylor recommendations, the Department of State
with Kennedy's approval instructed Ambassador Lodge in South Vietnam to
press President Di???m on a number of issues. Pending favorable action of
the part of Di???m, some economic aid programs would be suspended which,
in the view of the State Department, would not have an adverse impact on
the war against the Viet Cong for two to four months. Among other things,
Di???m was to be enjoined to cease criticism of the United States and to
focus on a serious military situation in the Mekong Delta. His strategy
should be to hold territory and protect the rural population rather than
having the ARVN undertake military sweeps of only temporary value.[8]
NSAM 263
National Security Action Memorandum No. 263 was approved by President
Kennedy on 11 October. NSAM 263 accepted the military recommendations of
McNamara and Taylor, as follows: (1) changes to be accomplished by the
government of South Vietnam to improve its military performance; (2) a
training program for Vietnamese "so that essential functions can be
carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to
withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time"; and (3) withdrawal as
previously planned of 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
NSAM 263 specifies that no formal announcement be made of the
withdrawal.[9]
Post by Bill Clarke
they discussed the drafting of NSAM 263. I've referenced this one for you
many times but apparently you can't read it since you still don't
understand about"Normal Rotation". I chuckle.
You know where you can shove your normal rotation. That is not what JFK
said. That is what the cover-up says to CYA.
Another false statement by Marsh. Boy howdy, you are just full of them
aren't you. It is on tape. You can hear both JFK and McNamara discussing
and agreeing to withdraw the 1,000 men by normal rotation. I know this
upsets you but facts are facts Marsh. Budt facts don'td concern you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
You couldn't because you can't do any research and
Post by Anthony Marsh
it was not online. So I got it and put it online.
More horse apples by Marsh.
Fact: You didn't have it. You've never been inside the National Archives
and you've never filed an FOIA request.
All you have is bluff and bluster and you're running low on bluster.
What I have shown Marsh, for many years now, are undeniable facts that
blow your false statements out of the water.
I am correct in what I said. You've never been inside the National
Archives and you've never filed an FOIA request.
If you have any proof that you have, post it.
You are correct. I have never done those two things. I assume you have
but wonder why it didn't do you any good.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-19 21:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Bill Clarke
Marsh, you really need to read this. I could never make you understand
about "bullet rise". Perhaps this gentleman will have better luck.
I'm sure you have no expectation that Marsh is actually going to admit he
was wrong. He seems to have confused himself into believing a bullet upon
leaving the barrel will actually rise above the line of the bore. What he
fails to grasp is that is a physical impossibility since the bullet does
not have any aerodynamic lift that would cause it to rise. A properly
aimed bullet will rise above a line from the muzzle to the intended target
but only because the muzzle is pointed above the intended target to
compensate for the arc of the bullet. The greater the distance, the more
the muzzle must be pointed above the intended target. If a line were drawn
through the muzzle of the gun out to infinity, a bullet fired from that
muzzle will never rise above that line. In fact it will begin curving
below that line the instant it leaves the muzzle.
I know you don't need any of this explained since I know you are far more
knowledgeable about firearms than either Marsh or myself. Perhaps there
are others out there who might be under the same false impression as Marsh
is.
It's called Line of Sight.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
You are correct but your reference calls it "line of aim". You haven't a
clue but I'll tr again here. In the Colonel's drawings please note that
the rifle is aimed UPWARD. The bullet does not rise on its own, it rises
because the rifle is aimed UPWARD. As Big Dog told you, the bullet cannot
The bore is aim up so indeed the bullet goes above the bore.
It does not go above the LINE of bore. Once again General, extend the
barrel out to infinity and then show me where the bullet RISES above it.
Sure, if you aim the gun up the bullet will rise above the muzzle just as
it rises above your head. But it will never rise ABOVE the LINE of bore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
rise above the line of bore. The sights, be they open or scoped, sit on
top of the barrel or receiver. Therefore, General, The bullet can not, on
its own, rise to intersect with the line of sight or aim. It is
physically impossible. How we fix this is by adjusting our scope or
sights downward so they intersect with the line of trajectory. The only
thing adjustable in the drawings is the line of sight or aim. Think about
it Marsh. Whelan knows what he is talking about. You don't.
You keep claiming that he doesn't because he used the old fashioned terms.
I have never said Colonel Whelan didn't know what he was talking about.
He certainly does. What I have said, many many times, is that you don't
know what you are talking about. Now, are we clear on that?
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view on
anything I post just to be annoying.
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
No, if I say the Zapruder film is authentic you have to say it is a fake.
Never admit any fact.
Post by Bill Clarke
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
You want to pooison the well by making false claims about what I say.
Because you are afraid people will debate the issues and learn the truth.
Straight up Marsh I'm afraid someone will believe your false statements
and go away from here ignorant of the true history. You stop posting
false statements and I'll go away.
Empty threat. First prove that I said anything false. Be specific.
For a recent one how about your claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men a month
home from Vietnam. Completely and totally FALSE.
Go to the JFK Library and listen to the tapes.
Nice try General. Weak but still you tried.
The offer still stands.
You still can't do research.
And you can't understand the research you do find and you make false
statements about it. I might add, Marsh, that if Kennedy had ordered
1,000 men a month be withdrawn from Vietnam I wouldn't have to go to the
library. The order would be even more famous than NSAM 263 and would be
all over the internet. So what you got now?
False. It was all over the InterNet because I was the one who posted it
to the InerNet. But you can never admit any fact.
You didn't even know about it until I posted it.
So then allow us to view this amazing order than not even Jones or
Galbraith or DiEugenio even speak of. Even your own Camelot Shiners won't
make such a silly suggestion.
I already posted it, but you're not smart enough to understand it.
NSAM 263.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/nsam263.jpg
Another false statement by Marsh. Now Marsh has gone full circle with his
false statements. He started out with NSAM 263. When that didn't work he
went to the McNamara Taylor Report. When that didn't work he ran all over
the place with more false statements. And today he is back to NSAM 263.
Marsh is like the rabbit...he runs in circles.
False. You just proved my point for me.
Your point is a false statement. In fact, most of your points here are
false. I'll go slow here for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
NSAM 263 references and APPROVES the recommendations in the McNamara Taylor
report
False statement by Marsh. NSAM 263 approves ONLY Section 1, B, (1-3)of
the report. There were other recommendations in the M/T report that the
president did NOT approve.
So what? It says he approves the withdrawal of 1,000 troops, but
instructs them to not make it public yet.
Here is "so what" Marsh. You are referring to #3. Please see above;
"NSAM 263 approves ONLY Section 1, B, (1-3)of the report".
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
so you have to read it to understand NSAM 263.
Another false statement by Marsh. The only part you have to read, as far
as NSAM 263 is concerned, is Section 1, B, (1-3). Nice to read the entire
report as I have from your web page but not necessary. The most important
document to understanding NSAM 263 is the tape of the NSC meeting when
I post it for you because you had no way of finding it. You can't even
find the National Archives and that's a long trip for just one document.
You're welcome.
So does the National Archives have the order from JFK withdrawing 1,000
men per month from Vietnam? I chortle.
Post by Anthony Marsh
National Security Action Memorandum 263
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
National Security Action Memorandum Number 263 (NSAM-263) was a national
security directive approved on 11 October 1963 by United States President
John F. Kennedy. The NSAM approved recommendations by Secretary of Defense
Robert McNamara and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Maxwell
Taylor. McNamara and Taylor's recommendations included an appraisal that
"great progress" was being made in the Vietnam War against Viet Cong
insurgents, that 1,000 military personnel could be withdrawn from South
Vietnam by the end of 1963, and that a "major part of the U.S. military
task can be completed by the end of 1965." The U.S. at this time had more
than 16,000 military personnel in South Vietnam.
NSAM-263 has served as an important source for many authors who have
claimed that President Kennedy planned to withdraw U.S. military forces
from Vietnam and would have completed the withdrawal after achieving
reelection in 1964.[1]
Contents
1 Background
2 NSAM 263
3 Impact and Controversy
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Background
In September 1963, South Vietnam was in the midst of a political crisis
and U.S. policymakers were in disagreement about how to proceed. The
brutal repression of anti-government demonstrations had eroded support for
the government of President Ngo Dinh Diem in both South Vietnam and the
United States. Kennedy's new Ambassador in Saigon, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr.,
was expressing support for South Vietnamese military leaders who wished to
overthrow the Diem government. At the same time, however, the head of the
U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV), General Paul D. Harkins
claimed that the military situation was improving in the war against the
insurgent Viet Cong [2]
To assess the situation, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Maxwell Taylor visited South
Vietnam from September 23, to October 2. President Kennedy instructed them
to produce "the best possible on-the-spot appraisal of the military and
paramilitary effort to defeat the Viet Cong."[3] The report that McNamara
and Taylor submitted to the President said that "the military campaign has
made great progress" and cited "present favorable military
trends."McNamara and Taylor also concluded "there is no solid evidence of
the possibility of a successful coup" against the Diem government.[4]
McNamara and Taylor recommended that the U.S. persuade the South
Vietnamese to make a number of changes in its military effort "to complete
the military campaign by the end of 1965 which would enable the U.S. to
"withdraw to the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time." McNamara and Taylor
supported a plan (proposed by McNamara in July 1963) to withdraw 1,000
U.S. military personnel from South Vietnam by the end of 1963. Other
recommendations were to suspend or reduce economic aid programs to South
Vietnam as a sign of U.S. dissatisfaction with the Diem government and to
pressure Diem into making necessary reforms.[5] The White House issued a
public statement on October 2, declaring its intention to withdraw 1,000
soldiers from Vietnam by the end of 1963.[6] and the same announcement was
made in Saigon by MACV on 16 October.[7]
On October 5, after meetings of McNamara and Taylor with President Kennedy
and acting on the McNamara/Taylor recommendations, the Department of State
with Kennedy's approval instructed Ambassador Lodge in South Vietnam to
press President Di???m on a number of issues. Pending favorable action of
the part of Di???m, some economic aid programs would be suspended which,
in the view of the State Department, would not have an adverse impact on
the war against the Viet Cong for two to four months. Among other things,
Di???m was to be enjoined to cease criticism of the United States and to
focus on a serious military situation in the Mekong Delta. His strategy
should be to hold territory and protect the rural population rather than
having the ARVN undertake military sweeps of only temporary value.[8]
NSAM 263
National Security Action Memorandum No. 263 was approved by President
Kennedy on 11 October. NSAM 263 accepted the military recommendations of
McNamara and Taylor, as follows: (1) changes to be accomplished by the
government of South Vietnam to improve its military performance; (2) a
training program for Vietnamese "so that essential functions can be
carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to
withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time"; and (3) withdrawal as
previously planned of 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
NSAM 263 specifies that no formal announcement be made of the
withdrawal.[9]
Post by Bill Clarke
they discussed the drafting of NSAM 263. I've referenced this one for you
many times but apparently you can't read it since you still don't
understand about"Normal Rotation". I chuckle.
You know where you can shove your normal rotation. That is not what JFK
said. That is what the cover-up says to CYA.
Another false statement by Marsh. Boy howdy, you are just full of them
aren't you. It is on tape. You can hear both JFK and McNamara discussing
and agreeing to withdraw the 1,000 men by normal rotation. I know this
upsets you but facts are facts Marsh. Budt facts don'td concern you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
You couldn't because you can't do any research and
Post by Anthony Marsh
it was not online. So I got it and put it online.
More horse apples by Marsh.
Fact: You didn't have it. You've never been inside the National Archives
and you've never filed an FOIA request.
All you have is bluff and bluster and you're running low on bluster.
What I have shown Marsh, for many years now, are undeniable facts that
blow your false statements out of the water.
I am correct in what I said. You've never been inside the National
Archives and you've never filed an FOIA request.
If you have any proof that you have, post it.
You are correct. I have never done those two things. I assume you have
but wonder why it didn't do you any good.
Thank you for confirming that I am correct.
Maybe you'll stop saying that I always lie.
FYI I found things that no one else did.
No one else knew to look for the second set of reinterment photos.
I got to look at the original negatives of the limousine photos which
prove that the dent was not there before the limo went into Dealey
Plaza. Not even the WC could do that.

claviger
2018-06-28 19:57:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view
on anything I post just to be annoying.
Like you never do that!
Post by Bill Clarke
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
Did you know General Giáp confessed to a Canadian reporter the
US Army won the war in Vietnam and the NVA was wiped out, but
the US mainstream media convinced the World just the opposite?
So the lying pen is mightier than the victorious sword.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-29 20:52:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view
on anything I post just to be annoying.
Like you never do that!
I've had thousands of opportunities to attack you and didn't because
they were not on topic and we had more important things to discuss.
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
Not at all Marsh. I take a contrary view because so often you are wrong.
Often you are very very wrong. I want other people reading this group to
know that so much of what you say is BS so they can get a more honest view
of the real history. From your misrepresenting what NSAM 263 says to your
false claim that JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home from Vietnam to the
"rising" bullet. I'll be there to point out your so many horse apples.
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer. So you'll
have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
Did you know General Giáp confessed to a Canadian reporter the
US Army won the war in Vietnam and the NVA was wiped out, but
the US mainstream media convinced the World just the opposite?
Pretty much. It's called propaganda.
Their forces were almost wiped out during the Tet Offensive, but that
was a propaganda success.
Post by claviger
So the lying pen is mightier than the victorious sword.
That sometimes happens. The Nazis were successful in slaughtering all
the Jews and the result for them was the total destruction of Germany.
claviger
2018-06-30 17:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view
on anything I post just to be annoying.
Like you never do that!
I've had thousands of opportunities to attack you and didn't because
they were not on topic and we had more important things to discuss.
Do you know what megalomania means? Thousands of opportunities?!
Don't think I've made that many total comments! What held you back?
Maybe the ROC which is actually enforced and yet you still sneak your
favorite hate speech slur,"Nazi" in a not so subtle manner. For some
reason the Administrator feels sorry for you and lets you get away with
it. It's OK, you've used so many times in so many ways I'm inured to
your petty attempt at slander.

My father was a Navy Blimp and PBY pilot who hunted Nazi U-Boats
in the Atlantic and Caribbean during in WWII. His cousin flew Hellcats
and Corsairs in the Pacific and was part of the Victory V-Formation that
flew over the USS Missouri during the surrender ceremony of Japan
accepted by Admiral Chester Nimitz. His other cousin was a Seabee
who steered landing craft for the Marines. At Tarawa the Japanese
had pre-sighted in their artillery and made direct hits on 5 landing craft
in a row. Dad's cousin was pilot of Number 6 who saw the pattern and
turned around. All the other landing craft followed his lead. When he
got back to the ship the Captain ordered him to the bridge. He feared
he would be screamed at and courtmartialed. To his surprise the Navy
Captain thanked him for being observant and explained how many US
Marines he just saved.

The Hellcat pilot above lost his son who served in the US Army 1st Cav
during Tet. The point is my family were not Nazis and never will be. We
believe in the US Constitution and serving our country in time of war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer.
So you'll have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
Did you know General Giáp confessed to a Canadian reporter the
US Army won the war in Vietnam and the NVA was wiped out, but
the US mainstream media convinced the World just the opposite?
Pretty much. It's called propaganda.
Their forces were almost wiped out during the Tet Offensive,
but that was a propaganda success.
According to General Giáp they thought Tet would be another
Dien Bien Phu. Tet was brilliantly planned and executed. The
NVA staff were stunned at the resistance and counter attack
by the US Army and Marines who obviously had been caught
by surprise. My cousin died in that resistance on 5 May 1968.
General Giáp was honset enough to tell the truth to the world
but the US Media was unwilling to do the same.

Tet was one of the greatest counterattacks in Military History.
The American people need to know that.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
So the lying pen is mightier than the victorious sword.
That sometimes happens. The Nazis were successful in
slaughtering all the Jews and the result for them was the
total destruction of Germany.
The highest percentage of any ethnic group to serve Germany
and Austria in WWI were the Jews. The Jews were very loyal to
both nations. Prior to WWII 60% of all Jews married Germans.
Probably the same in Austria, if not more.

Hitler destroyed millions of Germany's most loyal and talented
citizens. No wonder he lost the war.
Mark
2018-07-01 18:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view
on anything I post just to be annoying.
Like you never do that!
I've had thousands of opportunities to attack you and didn't because
they were not on topic and we had more important things to discuss.
Do you know what megalomania means? Thousands of opportunities?!
Don't think I've made that many total comments! What held you back?
Maybe the ROC which is actually enforced and yet you still sneak your
favorite hate speech slur,"Nazi" in a not so subtle manner. For some
reason the Administrator feels sorry for you and lets you get away with
it. It's OK, you've used so many times in so many ways I'm inured to
your petty attempt at slander.
My father was a Navy Blimp and PBY pilot who hunted Nazi U-Boats
in the Atlantic and Caribbean during in WWII. His cousin flew Hellcats
and Corsairs in the Pacific and was part of the Victory V-Formation that
flew over the USS Missouri during the surrender ceremony of Japan
accepted by Admiral Chester Nimitz. His other cousin was a Seabee
who steered landing craft for the Marines. At Tarawa the Japanese
had pre-sighted in their artillery and made direct hits on 5 landing craft
in a row. Dad's cousin was pilot of Number 6 who saw the pattern and
turned around. All the other landing craft followed his lead. When he
got back to the ship the Captain ordered him to the bridge. He feared
he would be screamed at and courtmartialed. To his surprise the Navy
Captain thanked him for being observant and explained how many US
Marines he just saved.
The Hellcat pilot above lost his son who served in the US Army 1st Cav
during Tet. The point is my family were not Nazis and never will be. We
believe in the US Constitution and serving our country in time of war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer.
So you'll have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
Did you know General Giáp confessed to a Canadian reporter the
US Army won the war in Vietnam and the NVA was wiped out, but
the US mainstream media convinced the World just the opposite?
Pretty much. It's called propaganda.
Their forces were almost wiped out during the Tet Offensive,
but that was a propaganda success.
According to General Giáp they thought Tet would be another
Dien Bien Phu. Tet was brilliantly planned and executed. The
NVA staff were stunned at the resistance and counter attack
by the US Army and Marines who obviously had been caught
by surprise. My cousin died in that resistance on 5 May 1968.
General Giáp was honset enough to tell the truth to the world
but the US Media was unwilling to do the same.
Tet was one of the greatest counterattacks in Military History.
The American people need to know that.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
So the lying pen is mightier than the victorious sword.
That sometimes happens. The Nazis were successful in
slaughtering all the Jews and the result for them was the
total destruction of Germany.
The highest percentage of any ethnic group to serve Germany
and Austria in WWI were the Jews. The Jews were very loyal to
both nations. Prior to WWII 60% of all Jews married Germans.
Probably the same in Austria, if not more.
Hitler destroyed millions of Germany's most loyal and talented
citizens. No wonder he lost the war.
Wow, a great post. A tip of my cap to you and your relatives. There are
accounts of German Jewish World War I veterans asking, while they were
being rounded up, how they could be considered traitors to their country.
The Nazis just laughed at them. Mark
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-02 17:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view
on anything I post just to be annoying.
Like you never do that!
I've had thousands of opportunities to attack you and didn't because
they were not on topic and we had more important things to discuss.
Do you know what megalomania means? Thousands of opportunities?!
Don't think I've made that many total comments! What held you back?
Maybe the ROC which is actually enforced and yet you still sneak your
favorite hate speech slur,"Nazi" in a not so subtle manner. For some
reason the Administrator feels sorry for you and lets you get away with
it. It's OK, you've used so many times in so many ways I'm inured to
your petty attempt at slander.
My father was a Navy Blimp and PBY pilot who hunted Nazi U-Boats
in the Atlantic and Caribbean during in WWII. His cousin flew Hellcats
and Corsairs in the Pacific and was part of the Victory V-Formation that
flew over the USS Missouri during the surrender ceremony of Japan
accepted by Admiral Chester Nimitz. His other cousin was a Seabee
who steered landing craft for the Marines. At Tarawa the Japanese
had pre-sighted in their artillery and made direct hits on 5 landing craft
in a row. Dad's cousin was pilot of Number 6 who saw the pattern and
turned around. All the other landing craft followed his lead. When he
got back to the ship the Captain ordered him to the bridge. He feared
he would be screamed at and courtmartialed. To his surprise the Navy
Captain thanked him for being observant and explained how many US
Marines he just saved.
The Hellcat pilot above lost his son who served in the US Army 1st Cav
during Tet. The point is my family were not Nazis and never will be. We
believe in the US Constitution and serving our country in time of war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer.
So you'll have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
Did you know General Giáp confessed to a Canadian reporter the
US Army won the war in Vietnam and the NVA was wiped out, but
the US mainstream media convinced the World just the opposite?
Pretty much. It's called propaganda.
Their forces were almost wiped out during the Tet Offensive,
but that was a propaganda success.
According to General Giáp they thought Tet would be another
Dien Bien Phu. Tet was brilliantly planned and executed. The
NVA staff were stunned at the resistance and counter attack
by the US Army and Marines who obviously had been caught
by surprise. My cousin died in that resistance on 5 May 1968.
General Giáp was honset enough to tell the truth to the world
but the US Media was unwilling to do the same.
Tet was one of the greatest counterattacks in Military History.
The American people need to know that.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
So the lying pen is mightier than the victorious sword.
That sometimes happens. The Nazis were successful in
slaughtering all the Jews and the result for them was the
total destruction of Germany.
The highest percentage of any ethnic group to serve Germany
and Austria in WWI were the Jews. The Jews were very loyal to
both nations. Prior to WWII 60% of all Jews married Germans.
Probably the same in Austria, if not more.
Hitler destroyed millions of Germany's most loyal and talented
citizens. No wonder he lost the war.
Wow, a great post. A tip of my cap to you and your relatives. There are
accounts of German Jewish World War I veterans asking, while they were
being rounded up, how they could be considered traitors to their country.
The Nazis just laughed at them. Mark
Were Trump's relatives in the SS? His father was KKK.
Seems they had to come to America because there were no blacks to lynch
in Germany.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-01 22:38:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You are never clear on anything. You always take a contrary view
on anything I post just to be annoying.
Like you never do that!
I've had thousands of opportunities to attack you and didn't because
they were not on topic and we had more important things to discuss.
Do you know what megalomania means? Thousands of opportunities?!
Don't think I've made that many total comments! What held you back?
Are you talking to me?
You haven't seen all the messages that McAadams deleted. Mainly to
protect you, his minion.
Post by claviger
Maybe the ROC which is actually enforced and yet you still sneak your
favorite hate speech slur,"Nazi" in a not so subtle manner. For some
I try to be subtle, but sometimes the example is quite obvious, like
those Nazis with their Tiki Torches. But Trump thinks some of them are
nice people.
Post by claviger
reason the Administrator feels sorry for you and lets you get away with
it. It's OK, you've used so many times in so many ways I'm inured to
your petty attempt at slander.
Administrator. There is no such job. McAdams does not OWN this
newsgroup. He only censors it. It's not his.
Post by claviger
My father was a Navy Blimp and PBY pilot who hunted Nazi U-Boats
in the Atlantic and Caribbean during in WWII. His cousin flew Hellcats
and Corsairs in the Pacific and was part of the Victory V-Formation that
flew over the USS Missouri during the surrender ceremony of Japan
accepted by Admiral Chester Nimitz. His other cousin was a Seabee
who steered landing craft for the Marines. At Tarawa the Japanese
had pre-sighted in their artillery and made direct hits on 5 landing craft
in a row. Dad's cousin was pilot of Number 6 who saw the pattern and
turned around. All the other landing craft followed his lead. When he
got back to the ship the Captain ordered him to the bridge. He feared
he would be screamed at and courtmartialed. To his surprise the Navy
Captain thanked him for being observant and explained how many US
Marines he just saved.
So, what's wrong with that. I am not allowed to brag about what my
father did. Still classified.
Post by claviger
The Hellcat pilot above lost his son who served in the US Army 1st Cav
during Tet. The point is my family were not Nazis and never will be. We
I didn't say YOU were a Nazi and I certainly never said anything about
your family. Methinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much. You are trying to
preemptively defend yourself against allegations that were never made.
Post by claviger
believe in the US Constitution and serving our country in time of war.
Only in war? You think war is the only way to prove your loyalty? What
percentage of people never serve in war? Does that make them all traitors?
You mean like Trump? Bone spurs? Really dude, you fell for that? My father
had curvature of the spine so he couldn't enlist for combat. So he went
into the Intelligence Corps.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Bill Clarke
You see Marsh, you annoyed me when you called me a baby killer.
So you'll have me for a buddy until one of us folds.
Did you know General Gi??p confessed to a Canadian reporter the
US Army won the war in Vietnam and the NVA was wiped out, but
the US mainstream media convinced the World just the opposite?
Pretty much. It's called propaganda.
Their forces were almost wiped out during the Tet Offensive,
but that was a propaganda success.
According to General Gi??p they thought Tet would be another
Dien Bien Phu. Tet was brilliantly planned and executed. The
NVA staff were stunned at the resistance and counter attack
by the US Army and Marines who obviously had been caught
by surprise. My cousin died in that resistance on 5 May 1968.
General Gi??p was honset enough to tell the truth to the world
but the US Media was unwilling to do the same.
Then how did you know about it? Don't you remember Walter Cronkite?
Post by claviger
Tet was one of the greatest counterattacks in Military History.
The American people need to know that.
We do. They have this thingie called TV.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
So the lying pen is mightier than the victorious sword.
That sometimes happens. The Nazis were successful in
slaughtering all the Jews and the result for them was the
total destruction of Germany.
The highest percentage of any ethnic group to serve Germany
and Austria in WWI were the Jews. The Jews were very loyal to
both nations. Prior to WWII 60% of all Jews married Germans.
Probably the same in Austria, if not more.
Cute. What's your point? Did they avoid going to the concentration camps?
Post by claviger
Hitler destroyed millions of Germany's most loyal and talented
citizens. No wonder he lost the war.
Yeah, not only that, but Albert Einstein.
Loading...