Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
John Hunt

A Word from Melvyn

Recommended Posts

AYTON: "Go away, Hunt, [sic] When I'm through with you, you will be the laughing stock of the good old USA! Keep your eyes open!"

If you say so, Melvyn. But given your inability to come through on threats/promises in the past, I'll believe it when I see it. Be forewarned, Melvyn,; if the content of your book is as sloppy as what you've given us here and at aajfk, you can expect to hear from me. ;-/

John Hunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AYTON: "Go away, Hunt, [sic] When I'm through with you, you will be the laughing stock of the good old USA! Keep your eyes open!"

If you say so, Melvyn. But given your inability to come through on threats/promises in the past, I'll believe it when I see it. Be forewarned, Melvyn,; if the content of your book is as sloppy as what you've given us here and at aajfk, you can expect to hear from me. ;-/

John Hunt

This was private corresponence with Hunt after receiving a number of insulting emails from him. Your readers, of course will be unaware of this.This is what Damn Moldea had to say about Hunt in one of Hunt's disingenuous 'multiple postings':

"With regard to the value of Hunt's work in the RFK case, I can't believe that any legitimate publisher would even consider publishing the garbage he's been peddling. There is no one I know and respect who takes anything he says or writes seriously.

Believe me, I was very nice to this kid when he first contacted me several years ago. Then, in 2005, he responded with a shameless all-out attack on me over the Schrade-shot issue in some little-known online publication--without ever giving me the opportunity to respond to his screwball charges before publication. Then, after the release of his article, he trashed me in various Usernet forums for refusing to react to what he had already published. It was a cheap tactic, and I really objected to it.

As you can see from Hunt's behavior on this main thread on which John Simkin asked me to respond to questions from your membership, as well as on the multiple threads that Hunt has created to divert attention away from my responses, his dirty tricks continue. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moldea: WHAAA!!!!!!!!! WHAAA!!!!!!!!! WHAAA!!!!!!!!!

It has not gone unnoticed that Moldea never attempted to rebut my essay:

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/moldeas.htm

Melvyn tried to do it for him at alt.assassination.jfk and got spanked badly. Melvyn’s job was to have a shot hit Paul Schrade in the head and nothing else (al a Moldea) and still be able to squeeze the shooting scenario out with no more than 8 shots. In one notably sad attempt, he got the bullet count down to 8 shots…be he forgot to account for one of RFK’s chest wounds. Ooops!!!

Quoting from alt.assassination.jfk:

Here is one of two attempts by Melvyn Ayton to reconcile the “Official” LAPD damage to the RFK shooting.

Wrote Melvyn:

Quote On

There are a number of possibilities that can be used to explain the

trajectories of the shots without resorting to the possibility of a

second gun.

Remember Thomas Noguchi and Dan Moldea said there was no one who could

positively say to a 100% degree of certainty how the bullets travelled. [sic]

A ********number of possible explanations, which are contrary to the official

version, can account for the paths of the bullets.***********

There were four stray bullets:

1. The bullet that passed through Kennedy's jacket without striking him

2. The through and through bullet that exited from his chest.

3. The bullet that struck the ceiling and exited through one of the

ceiling tiles.

4. The bullet that was supposedly lost in the ceiling interspace.

In its official inventory of the bullets fired by Sirhan the LAPD

claimed that Schrade was wounded by the bullet that went harmlessly

through the shoulder pad of RFK's suit. Moldea maintains this is wrong.

Moldea believes the first shot hit Paul Schrade. Moldea also believes

that the shoulder pad bullet probably struck one of the four shooting

victims and this is consistent with the fact that Sirhan's revolver

could only fire 8 shots.

I believe the following scenario is entirely plausible, although there

are other scenarios that could account for the 8 shots - as Vincent

Bugliosi said, "If (Wolfer's) report is in error, for whatever reason,

then there might be an explanation for some of these things: ricochets,

parts of bullets, fragments. This whole notion of a second gun is

premised on the assumption (Wolfer's) report is correct."

BULLET 1 - Missed Kennedy and struck Paul Schrade in the forehead.

BULLET 2 - The shoulder pad shot as RFK was raising his arm - this

bullet then possibly hit one of the other four victims after travelling [sic]

upwards to the ceiling tiles and ricocheting. The main candidate for

this shot is Evans. Evans was bending down at the time of the shooting

- the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor then struck

Evans in the head. This bullet could account for two of the ceiling tile

holes, entry and exit.

BULLET 3 - The bullet that hit Kennedy in his right armpit and lodged

in the back of his neck. This bullet was recovered.

BULLET 4 - The bullet that hit RFK in the mastoid. This was the shot

that was fatal. Bullet fragments were recovered.

BULLET 5 - The bullet that went through Goldstein's left pant leg

without striking him - this bullet could have hit Stroll - the bullet

was recovered during surgery.

BULLET 6 - The bullet that hit Weisal [sic] (The victim’s name was Weisel)] in the abdomen and which was recovered during surgery.

BULLET 7 - The bullet that was lost in the ceiling interspace.

BULLET 8 - The bullet that hit Goldstein in the thigh and which was

recovered.

Three ceiling tile holes are accounted for in the above 'scenario'. The

alleged bullet holes in the pantry door divider were too small to be

made by .22 caliber bullets. [Ayton is 100% wrong here. The small object in the door behind the ***podium*** was too small to have been caused a bullet. No measurements for the size of the holes in the ***pantry*** divider were ever listed. Not once. Ayton just made that up. J.H.] The hole In fact they were not made by bullets at

all as Moldea ably demonstrates.

Quote Off

This is supposed to be Ayton’s “entirely plausible” scenario accounting for the wounds and damage using no more than the 8 shots Sirhan was capable of firing.

The trouble is, Ayton’s loose grasp of the RFK assassination evidence is betrayed by several obvious, critical errors, two of which I will outline here.

CRITICAL MISTAKE #1

The first (and most embarrassing) error is that Ayton gave us an “entirely plausible" 8 shot scenario…except he FORGOT to account for an ENTIRE wound set; A careful reading of his scenario reveals that Ayton left out the shot that went in RFK's right rear armpit and came out through the front chest!!! Oops!! Ayton Add in the shot Ayton left out and Melvyn just gave us a 9 shot scenario while attempting prove an 8 shot scenario.

CRITICAL MISTAKE #2

Wrote Ayton: “BULLET 2 - The shoulder pad shot as RFK was raising his arm – this bullet then possibly hit one of the other four victims after travelling [sic] upwards to the ceiling tiles and ricocheting. The main candidate for this shot is Evans. Evans was bending down at the time of the shooting - the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor then struck Evans in the head. This bullet could account for two of the ceiling tile

holes, entry and exit"

Ayton’s second critical gaff?? He linked the shot that went into the ceiling and ricocheted back into the pantry with Elizabeth Evans’ headwound. The LAPD ran that trajectory on the night of the assassination and it lead to the divider at a point above everyone’s head. The attached graphic demonstrates the absurdity of Ayton’s RFK SBT shot, with the LAPD version included for reference purposes.

Once we divorce the ceiling shot from the Evans shot, we add yet another bullet to Ayton’s “entirely plausible” 8 shot scenario. The brings Melvyn up to 10 shots. Oops!!

I posted this same message at alt.assassination.jfk and Ayton never attempted a rebuttal.

Dan Moldea and Ken Rahn would not attempt to explain the Moldea scenario using Moldea’s "Schrade Shot" conclusion. Now along comes Melvyn Ayton, who gave it a go. Although he tried to rehabilitate Moldea, laughably, Ayton leaves us with a scenario that demands 10 bullets at a minimum. Now that's rich!!

John Hunt

********************************************************************************

*********

Another exchange with the analytically challenged Melvyn at alt.assassination.jfk:

In defense of Moldea’s indefensible recounting of the RFK assassination shooting scenario, Mel Ayton offered the explanation that a shot ricocheted off the floor and hit Elizabeth Evens in the forehead. As with Moldea, Ayton offered up an explanation that, when applied to the “Official Damage”, results in a nine-shot scenario at a minimum:

1. Paul Schrade – According to Moldea, Schrade was hit by a bullet that hit nothing else. This is Shot #1.

2. Elizabeth Evans – According to Ayton, Evens was possibly hit by a ricochet off the floor. That is Shot #2.

3. RFK - Shot in the head, no exit. That is Shot #3.

4. RFK - Entry and exit of a bullet which passed through the rear right shoulder of RFK’s suit jacket at a sharply upward angle. If we tie that to the bullet entry hole in the ceiling, which bullet did not exit back down into the pantry, we can call that shot #4, the “lost bullet.”

5. RFK - Shot in the right rear armpit, with the bullet coming to rest in the flesh beneath the skin at the base of the back of the neck. The bullet was recovered at autopsy. This is Shot #5.

6. RFK - Shot in the right rear armpit one inch from #5, exiting through the front of the chest. Under Ayton’s theory, this could not have hit Schrade in the head because Moldea says Schrade was hit by a bullet that hit nothing else. This is Shot #6. We’ll get back to this later.

7. Ira Goldstein - Shot in the left buttock/thigh. The bullet was recovered during surgery. This is Shot #7.

8. Ira Goldstein - Entry and exit of a bullet that passed cleanly through his left pant leg without striking him. If we tie this through-and-through shot to the shot that ricocheted off the floor and struck Irwin Stroll in the shin at an upward angle, we can call this Shot #8.

Here is where Ayton tripped himself up; we have already reached the maximum of 8 shots from Sirhan’s revolver and we STILL have TWO sets of bullet damage left to account for:

A. William Weisel - Shot in the left abdomen horizontally just above the beltline.

B. The entry of a bullet in a ceiling tile, ricochet off the concrete ceiling, and re-entry back down into the panty.

One might try to argue that the bullet that exited through RFK’s chest (#6 above) caused the ceiling tile “Ricochet Shot,” and then struck Weisel, thus bring the number of shots back down to 8. But that scenario fails for two solid reasons:

1. The origin of the ceiling tile “Ricochet Shot” started well in front of RFK. It could not have passed through RFK and create the damage to the tiles as it existed. (See the attachment.) Thus those two sets of damage CANNOT be linked.

2. William Weisel was coming through the pantry door sideways. He was hit in the left abdomen with the bullet coming to rest near his spine. That bullet was traveling horizontally. Thus the ceiling tile “Ricochet Shot” could not have caused the Weisel wounding because he was not in the right position and the trajectories are firmly incompatible. (See also the attachment.)

Moldea and Rahn would not attempt to explain the Moldea scenario using the “Schrade Shot” scenario. Now along comes Mel Ayton. He gave it a shot, as with Moldea, he inadvertently demands a conspiratorial shooting scenario. At least Moldea’s version could be accounted for with only nine shots if we say that Evens was hit by the shot that came back down into the pantry. Ayton, although he tried to rehabilitate Moldea, laughably leaves us with a scenario that demands ten bullets at a minimum. Now that’s rich!!

John Hunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moldea: WHAAA!!!!!!!!! WHAAA!!!!!!!!! WHAAA!!!!!!!!!

It has not gone unnoticed that Moldea never attempted to rebut my essay:

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/moldeas.htm

Melvyn tried to do it for him at alt.assassination.jfk and got spanked badly. Melvyn’s job was to have a shot hit Paul Schrade in the head and nothing else (al a Moldea) and still be able to squeeze the shooting scenario out with no more than 8 shots. In one notably sad attempt, he got the bullet count down to 8 shots…be he forgot to account for one of RFK’s chest wounds. Ooops!!!

Quoting from alt.assassination.jfk:

Here is one of two attempts by Melvyn Ayton to reconcile the “Official” LAPD damage to the RFK shooting.

Wrote Melvyn:

Quote On

There are a number of possibilities that can be used to explain the

trajectories of the shots without resorting to the possibility of a

second gun.

Remember Thomas Noguchi and Dan Moldea said there was no one who could

positively say to a 100% degree of certainty how the bullets travelled. [sic]

A ********number of possible explanations, which are contrary to the official

version, can account for the paths of the bullets.***********

There were four stray bullets:

1. The bullet that passed through Kennedy's jacket without striking him

2. The through and through bullet that exited from his chest.

3. The bullet that struck the ceiling and exited through one of the

ceiling tiles.

4. The bullet that was supposedly lost in the ceiling interspace.

In its official inventory of the bullets fired by Sirhan the LAPD

claimed that Schrade was wounded by the bullet that went harmlessly

through the shoulder pad of RFK's suit. Moldea maintains this is wrong.

Moldea believes the first shot hit Paul Schrade. Moldea also believes

that the shoulder pad bullet probably struck one of the four shooting

victims and this is consistent with the fact that Sirhan's revolver

could only fire 8 shots.

I believe the following scenario is entirely plausible, although there

are other scenarios that could account for the 8 shots - as Vincent

Bugliosi said, "If (Wolfer's) report is in error, for whatever reason,

then there might be an explanation for some of these things: ricochets,

parts of bullets, fragments. This whole notion of a second gun is

premised on the assumption (Wolfer's) report is correct."

BULLET 1 - Missed Kennedy and struck Paul Schrade in the forehead.

BULLET 2 - The shoulder pad shot as RFK was raising his arm - this

bullet then possibly hit one of the other four victims after travelling [sic]

upwards to the ceiling tiles and ricocheting. The main candidate for

this shot is Evans. Evans was bending down at the time of the shooting

- the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor then struck

Evans in the head. This bullet could account for two of the ceiling tile

holes, entry and exit.

BULLET 3 - The bullet that hit Kennedy in his right armpit and lodged

in the back of his neck. This bullet was recovered.

BULLET 4 - The bullet that hit RFK in the mastoid. This was the shot

that was fatal. Bullet fragments were recovered.

BULLET 5 - The bullet that went through Goldstein's left pant leg

without striking him - this bullet could have hit Stroll - the bullet

was recovered during surgery.

BULLET 6 - The bullet that hit Weisal [sic] (The victim’s name was Weisel)] in the abdomen and which was recovered during surgery.

BULLET 7 - The bullet that was lost in the ceiling interspace.

BULLET 8 - The bullet that hit Goldstein in the thigh and which was

recovered.

Three ceiling tile holes are accounted for in the above 'scenario'. The

alleged bullet holes in the pantry door divider were too small to be

made by .22 caliber bullets. [Ayton is 100% wrong here. The small object in the door behind the ***podium*** was too small to have been caused a bullet. No measurements for the size of the holes in the ***pantry*** divider were ever listed. Not once. Ayton just made that up. J.H.] The hole In fact they were not made by bullets at

all as Moldea ably demonstrates.

Quote Off

This is supposed to be Ayton’s “entirely plausible” scenario accounting for the wounds and damage using no more than the 8 shots Sirhan was capable of firing.

The trouble is, Ayton’s loose grasp of the RFK assassination evidence is betrayed by several obvious, critical errors, two of which I will outline here.

CRITICAL MISTAKE #1

The first (and most embarrassing) error is that Ayton gave us an “entirely plausible" 8 shot scenario…except he FORGOT to account for an ENTIRE wound set; A careful reading of his scenario reveals that Ayton left out the shot that went in RFK's right rear armpit and came out through the front chest!!! Oops!! Ayton Add in the shot Ayton left out and Melvyn just gave us a 9 shot scenario while attempting prove an 8 shot scenario.

CRITICAL MISTAKE #2

Wrote Ayton: “BULLET 2 - The shoulder pad shot as RFK was raising his arm – this bullet then possibly hit one of the other four victims after travelling [sic] upwards to the ceiling tiles and ricocheting. The main candidate for this shot is Evans. Evans was bending down at the time of the shooting - the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor then struck Evans in the head. This bullet could account for two of the ceiling tile

holes, entry and exit"

Ayton’s second critical gaff?? He linked the shot that went into the ceiling and ricocheted back into the pantry with Elizabeth Evans’ headwound. The LAPD ran that trajectory on the night of the assassination and it lead to the divider at a point above everyone’s head. The attached graphic demonstrates the absurdity of Ayton’s RFK SBT shot, with the LAPD version included for reference purposes.

Once we divorce the ceiling shot from the Evans shot, we add yet another bullet to Ayton’s “entirely plausible” 8 shot scenario. The brings Melvyn up to 10 shots. Oops!!

I posted this same message at alt.assassination.jfk and Ayton never attempted a rebuttal.

Dan Moldea and Ken Rahn would not attempt to explain the Moldea scenario using Moldea’s "Schrade Shot" conclusion. Now along comes Melvyn Ayton, who gave it a go. Although he tried to rehabilitate Moldea, laughably, Ayton leaves us with a scenario that demands 10 bullets at a minimum. Now that's rich!!

John Hunt

********************************************************************************

*********

Another exchange with the analytically challenged Melvyn at alt.assassination.jfk:

In defense of Moldea’s indefensible recounting of the RFK assassination shooting scenario, Mel Ayton offered the explanation that a shot ricocheted off the floor and hit Elizabeth Evens in the forehead. As with Moldea, Ayton offered up an explanation that, when applied to the “Official Damage”, results in a nine-shot scenario at a minimum:

1. Paul Schrade – According to Moldea, Schrade was hit by a bullet that hit nothing else. This is Shot #1.

2. Elizabeth Evans – According to Ayton, Evens was possibly hit by a ricochet off the floor. That is Shot #2.

3. RFK - Shot in the head, no exit. That is Shot #3.

4. RFK - Entry and exit of a bullet which passed through the rear right shoulder of RFK’s suit jacket at a sharply upward angle. If we tie that to the bullet entry hole in the ceiling, which bullet did not exit back down into the pantry, we can call that shot #4, the “lost bullet.”

5. RFK - Shot in the right rear armpit, with the bullet coming to rest in the flesh beneath the skin at the base of the back of the neck. The bullet was recovered at autopsy. This is Shot #5.

6. RFK - Shot in the right rear armpit one inch from #5, exiting through the front of the chest. Under Ayton’s theory, this could not have hit Schrade in the head because Moldea says Schrade was hit by a bullet that hit nothing else. This is Shot #6. We’ll get back to this later.

7. Ira Goldstein - Shot in the left buttock/thigh. The bullet was recovered during surgery. This is Shot #7.

8. Ira Goldstein - Entry and exit of a bullet that passed cleanly through his left pant leg without striking him. If we tie this through-and-through shot to the shot that ricocheted off the floor and struck Irwin Stroll in the shin at an upward angle, we can call this Shot #8.

Here is where Ayton tripped himself up; we have already reached the maximum of 8 shots from Sirhan’s revolver and we STILL have TWO sets of bullet damage left to account for:

A. William Weisel - Shot in the left abdomen horizontally just above the beltline.

B. The entry of a bullet in a ceiling tile, ricochet off the concrete ceiling, and re-entry back down into the panty.

One might try to argue that the bullet that exited through RFK’s chest (#6 above) caused the ceiling tile “Ricochet Shot,” and then struck Weisel, thus bring the number of shots back down to 8. But that scenario fails for two solid reasons:

1. The origin of the ceiling tile “Ricochet Shot” started well in front of RFK. It could not have passed through RFK and create the damage to the tiles as it existed. (See the attachment.) Thus those two sets of damage CANNOT be linked.

2. William Weisel was coming through the pantry door sideways. He was hit in the left abdomen with the bullet coming to rest near his spine. That bullet was traveling horizontally. Thus the ceiling tile “Ricochet Shot” could not have caused the Weisel wounding because he was not in the right position and the trajectories are firmly incompatible. (See also the attachment.)

Moldea and Rahn would not attempt to explain the Moldea scenario using the “Schrade Shot” scenario. Now along comes Mel Ayton. He gave it a shot, as with Moldea, he inadvertently demands a conspiratorial shooting scenario. At least Moldea’s version could be accounted for with only nine shots if we say that Evens was hit by the shot that came back down into the pantry. Ayton, although he tried to rehabilitate Moldea, laughably leaves us with a scenario that demands ten bullets at a minimum. Now that’s rich!!

John Hunt

John Simkin still allows Hunt to call me 'Melvyn' without my permission - he apparently thinks this name is a little effete and that he is being 'witty' when it is really schoolyard taunting. Hunt, please use mature language - it will enhance your credibility.

I have been called Mel professionally and privately for the last 50 odd years - in the same way that people choose to be called Tom, Steve, Dan etc. In future, please address me by this name and I ask the moderator John Simkin to ensure this happens. I'm sure he doesn't wish forum members to exchange insulting, personal remarks to one another. Start here, Mr Simkin.

Readers beware - Hunt has constructed this scenario through one error I made in a previous post when I left out a short phrase. As you will see from the following 'scenario' 8 shots account for all wounds and bullet holes:

There are a number of possibilities that can explain the trajectories of the shots without resorting to the possibility of a second gun. Thomas Noguchi and Dan Moldea concluded there was no one who could positively say to a 100% degree of certainty how the bullets travelled. A number of possible explanations, which are contrary to the official version, can account for the paths of the bullets.

There were four stray bullets:

1. The bullet that passed through Kennedy’s jacket without striking him

2. The through-and-through bullet that exited from Kennedy’s chest.

3. The bullet that struck the pantry ceiling and exited through one of the ceiling tiles.

4. The bullet that was supposedly lost in the pantry ceiling interspace.

There are other scenarios that could account for the 8 shots – as Vincent Bugliosi said, “If (Wolfer’s) report is in error, for whatever reason, then there might be an explanation for some of these things: ricochets, parts of bullets, fragments. This whole notion of a second gun is premised on the assumption (Wolfer’s) report is correct.”

BULLET 1 - Missed Kennedy and struck Paul Schrade in the forehead.

BULLET 2 - The shoulder pad shot as RFK was raising his arm – this bullet then possibly hit one of the other four victims after travelling upwards to the ceiling tiles and ricocheting. The main candidate for this shot is Elizabeth Evans. Evans believed she was bending down at the time of the shooting – the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor, then struck Evans in the head - or, she could have been standing upright when the bullet ricocheted a second time off the floor. This bullet could account for two of the ceiling tile holes, entry and exit.

BULLET 3 – The bullet that hit Kennedy in his right armpit and lodged in the back of his neck. This bullet was recovered.

BULLET 4 - The bullet that hit RFK in the mastoid. This was the shot that was fatal. Bullet fragments were recovered.

BULLET 5 – The bullet that went through Ira Goldstein’s left pant leg without striking him – this bullet could have hit Irwin Stroll – the bullet was recovered during surgery.

BULLET 6 – The bullet that hit William Weisel in the abdomen and was recovered during surgery.

BULLET 7 – The bullet that was lost in the ceiling interspace. This may very well have been the bullet that entered then exited RFK’s chest and travelled upwards.

BULLET 8 – The bullet that hit Goldstein in the thigh and was recovered.

Three ceiling tile holes are accounted for in the above scenario. The alleged bullet holes in the pantry door were too small to be made by .22 caliber bullets. In fact they were not made by bullets at all as Moldea discovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Simkin still allows Hunt to call me 'Melvyn' without my permission - he apparently thinks this name is a little effete and that he is being 'witty' when it is really schoolyard taunting. Hunt, please use mature language - it will enhance your credibility.

I have been called Mel professionally and privately for the last 50 odd years - in the same way that people choose to be called Tom, Steve, Dan etc. In future, please address me by this name and I ask the moderator John Simkin to ensure this happens. I'm sure he doesn't wish forum members to exchange insulting, personal remarks to one another. Start here, Mr Simkin.

Readers beware - Hunt has constructed this scenario through one error I made in a previous post when I left out a short phrase. As you will see from the following 'scenario' 8 shots account for all wounds and bullet holes:

I will butt in here briefly, not to engage either of you in relevant discussion, but simply to point something out.

Mel, you asked that John Hunt refrain from calling you Melvyn as you deem it inappropriate, which is fair enough, yet in the following paragraph you refer to him as 'Hunt', I would deem this straight from the schoolyard too.

Its irrelevant, but I just wanted to put it in there and I'm sure Mel will understand why I wrote this.

All the best gentlemen and happy debating.

John Geraghty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I describe Melvyn Ayton as an “analytically challenged” individual, and then give concrete examples, and all Melvyn can do is whine because I addressed him by his real name, which, for the record,…drum roll, please…, is,… “Melvyn!”, ladies and gentlemen!!

In fact, in Melvyn’s latest appearance at alt.assassination.jfk, which he posted freely and of his own volition, he sent the message from address…MelvynAyton@aol.com

Melvyn, Melvyn, Melvyn,…If you are going to put your self out there as Melvyn, then embrace it!! Go the whole Hog!!

Now that I think of it, I preferred to be called MelvinhatesMelvin, and nothing else!! I know it seems a bit pantywaist-ish, but, hey…, I’m getting sensitive in my old age.

Anyway, henceforth, and for evermore, I request that you regard me as “MelvinhatesMelvin.” You can throw in a “Mr.” if the urge strikes you, but it really isn’t necessary.

Thank you, Mel, for your future strict adherence to the requested usage of my new moniker.

Signed

MelvinhatesMelvin

Formerly known as “John Hunt”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I describe Melvyn Ayton as an “analytically challenged” individual, and then give concrete examples, and all Melvyn can do is whine because I addressed him by his real name, which, for the record,…drum roll, please…, is,… “Melvyn!”, ladies and gentlemen!!

In fact, in Melvyn’s latest appearance at alt.assassination.jfk, which he posted freely and of his own volition, he sent the message from address…MelvynAyton@aol.com

Melvyn, Melvyn, Melvyn,…If you are going to put your self out there as Melvyn, then embrace it!! Go the whole Hog!!

Now that I think of it, I preferred to be called MelvinhatesMelvin, and nothing else!! I know it seems a bit pantywaist-ish, but, hey…, I’m getting sensitive in my old age.

Anyway, henceforth, and for evermore, I request that you regard me as “MelvinhatesMelvin.” You can throw in a “Mr.” if the urge strikes you, but it really isn’t necessary.

Thank you, Mel, for your future strict adherence to the requested usage of my new moniker.

Signed

MelvinhatesMelvin

Formerly known as “John Hunt”

John Geraghty,

Thank you for pointing this out. If you check out previous threads you will see that I am often referred to as 'Ayton' - I had no objection. As far as my name is concerned 'MelvynAyton' is an email address - when I signed up for aol there was, apparently, someone else with the name 'Mel Ayton'.

I really believe that rational people who read these posts will agree that Mr Hunt's methodology in debate is incredibly bad-mannered and insulting as well as immature. I recall sometime last year John Simkin was reminding posters not to engage in insulting behaviour. Evidently, some posters are ignoring him and he has little or no control over his own website.

I would like to debate on this website the important issues raised. As John G. will recall I was praised for hanging on in there and debating the MM/RFK/JFK issues even though the JFK/RFK forums are dominated by convinced conspiracists who see little or no merit in my work.However, I have no intention of lowering myself into the gutter to deal with Mr Hunt and others who believe that insulting me will further their cause - unless I see some positive response from the forum's moderator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Melvyn Shares his Ignorance of the Evidence With Us Again!! To wit:

> Readers beware - Hunt has constructed this scenario through one error I made

> in a previous post when I left out a short phrase. As you will see from the

> following 'scenario' 8 shots account for all wounds and bullet holes:

>

<snippage of irrelevant material>

> BULLET 1 - Missed Kennedy and struck Paul Schrade in the forehead.

> BULLET 2 - The shoulder pad shot as RFK was raising his arm - this bullet

> then possibly hit one of the other four victims after travelling upwards to

> the ceiling tiles and ricocheting. The main candidate for this shot is

> Elizabeth Evans. Evans believed she was bending down at the time of the

> shooting - the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor, then

> struck Evans in the head –

Wrong. The attached scale diagram, which I have posted for you four times now, shows that your proposed Evans ricochet shot is absolutely ludicrous. Run the image by Larry Sturdivan and ask him if your ill-conceived proposal is possible. I dare you!!!!!!!

> …or, she could have been standing upright when the

> bullet ricocheted a second time off the floor.

Once again, I will point out your obvious error; The shot that hit Evans in the forehead entered one inch below the hairline and traveled UPWARD for several inches and was lodged between her scalp and skull. Did you catch that?? Upwards. The ricochet shot was headed downward. In order for your proposal to be possible, the bullet would have to stop in mid air, rotate 65 degrees, then continue on into Evans head in the upward manner that it did. Are you really going to stand by that notion??

Were I you, I would educate myself on the evidence before offering a scenario that is so easily debunked. It would make you look like less of a hack.

> This bullet could account for

> two of the ceiling tile holes, entry and exit.

No it does not. Once you divorce the ricochet shot from Evans, you are back up to nine bullets from an eight-shot revolver. The only candidate left that can alleviate you of your discomfort would be if the ricochet shot hit William Weisel. But without question, that did not happen.

How do we know that? Because the slug which ricocheted back down into the pantry would have deformed grossly upon striking the concrete ceiling. Yet the slug pulled from William Weisel’s body was in nearly perfect condition. In fact, it was the best preserved of all the officially recovered bullets. A photo of the bullet pulled from Weisel is attached. Included is an image of the Stroll bullet, which did ricochet off the pantry floor before entering his leg. (Both photos were taken by Sirhan’s former researcher, Rose Lynn Mangan at CSA.)

I dare you to run the image by Sturdivan and ask him if the Weisel bullet ricocheted off anything. I dare you!!

Bottom line – The ceiling tile ricochet shot hit neither Elizabeth Evans or William Weisel. Therefore you are back up to nine shots. You’re all done, Ayton.

Let me ask you a question, Mel. Why do you continue to post this unworkable scenario after having been educated on several occasions as to just how preposterous it is?? I would love to see you defend what you have written but it didn’t happen the last three times I posted this rebuttal. I’m confident that this time around, you will defend yourself. :-)

John Hunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Melvyn Shares his Ignorance of the Evidence With Us Again!! To wit:

> Readers beware - Hunt has constructed this scenario through one error I made

> in a previous post when I left out a short phrase. As you will see from the

> following 'scenario' 8 shots account for all wounds and bullet holes:

>

<snippage of irrelevant material>

> BULLET 1 - Missed Kennedy and struck Paul Schrade in the forehead.

> BULLET 2 - The shoulder pad shot as RFK was raising his arm - this bullet

> then possibly hit one of the other four victims after travelling upwards to

> the ceiling tiles and ricocheting. The main candidate for this shot is

> Elizabeth Evans. Evans believed she was bending down at the time of the

> shooting - the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor, then

> struck Evans in the head –

Wrong. The attached scale diagram, which I have posted for you four times now, shows that your proposed Evans ricochet shot is absolutely ludicrous. Run the image by Larry Sturdivan and ask him if your ill-conceived proposal is possible. I dare you!!!!!!!

> …or, she could have been standing upright when the

> bullet ricocheted a second time off the floor.

Once again, I will point out your obvious error; The shot that hit Evans in the forehead entered one inch below the hairline and traveled UPWARD for several inches and was lodged between her scalp and skull. Did you catch that?? Upwards. The ricochet shot was headed downward. In order for your proposal to be possible, the bullet would have to stop in mid air, rotate 65 degrees, then continue on into Evans head in the upward manner that it did. Are you really going to stand by that notion??

Were I you, I would educate myself on the evidence before offering a scenario that is so easily debunked. It would make you look like less of a hack.

> This bullet could account for

> two of the ceiling tile holes, entry and exit.

No it does not. Once you divorce the ricochet shot from Evans, you are back up to nine bullets from an eight-shot revolver. The only candidate left that can alleviate you of your discomfort would be if the ricochet shot hit William Weisel. But without question, that did not happen.

How do we know that? Because the slug which ricocheted back down into the pantry would have deformed grossly upon striking the concrete ceiling. Yet the slug pulled from William Weisel’s body was in nearly perfect condition. In fact, it was the best preserved of all the officially recovered bullets. A photo of the bullet pulled from Weisel is attached. Included is an image of the Stroll bullet, which did ricochet off the pantry floor before entering his leg. (Both photos were taken by Sirhan’s former researcher, Rose Lynn Mangan at CSA.)

I dare you to run the image by Sturdivan and ask him if the Weisel bullet ricocheted off anything. I dare you!!

Bottom line – The ceiling tile ricochet shot hit neither Elizabeth Evans or William Weisel. Therefore you are back up to nine shots. You’re all done, Ayton.

Let me ask you a question, Mel. Why do you continue to post this unworkable scenario after having been educated on several occasions as to just how preposterous it is?? I would love to see you defend what you have written but it didn’t happen the last three times I posted this rebuttal. I’m confident that this time around, you will defend yourself. :-)

John Hunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melvyn Shares his Ignorance of the Evidence With Us Again!! To wit:

> Readers beware - Hunt has constructed this scenario through one error I made

> in a previous post when I left out a short phrase. As you will see from the

> following 'scenario' 8 shots account for all wounds and bullet holes:

>

<snippage of irrelevant material>

> BULLET 1 - Missed Kennedy and struck Paul Schrade in the forehead.

> BULLET 2 - The shoulder pad shot as RFK was raising his arm - this bullet

> then possibly hit one of the other four victims after travelling upwards to

> the ceiling tiles and ricocheting. The main candidate for this shot is

> Elizabeth Evans. Evans believed she was bending down at the time of the

> shooting - the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor, then

> struck Evans in the head –

Wrong. The attached scale diagram, which I have posted for you four times now, shows that your proposed Evans ricochet shot is absolutely ludicrous. Run the image by Larry Sturdivan and ask him if your ill-conceived proposal is possible. I dare you!!!!!!!

> …or, she could have been standing upright when the

> bullet ricocheted a second time off the floor.

Once again, I will point out your obvious error; The shot that hit Evans in the forehead entered one inch below the hairline and traveled UPWARD for several inches and was lodged between her scalp and skull. Did you catch that?? Upwards. The ricochet shot was headed downward. In order for your proposal to be possible, the bullet would have to stop in mid air, rotate 65 degrees, then continue on into Evans head in the upward manner that it did. Are you really going to stand by that notion??

Were I you, I would educate myself on the evidence before offering a scenario that is so easily debunked. It would make you look like less of a hack.

> This bullet could account for

> two of the ceiling tile holes, entry and exit.

No it does not. Once you divorce the ricochet shot from Evans, you are back up to nine bullets from an eight-shot revolver. The only candidate left that can alleviate you of your discomfort would be if the ricochet shot hit William Weisel. But without question, that did not happen.

How do we know that? Because the slug which ricocheted back down into the pantry would have deformed grossly upon striking the concrete ceiling. Yet the slug pulled from William Weisel’s body was in nearly perfect condition. In fact, it was the best preserved of all the officially recovered bullets. A photo of the bullet pulled from Weisel is attached. Included is an image of the Stroll bullet, which did ricochet off the pantry floor before entering his leg. (Both photos were taken by Sirhan’s former researcher, Rose Lynn Mangan at CSA.)

I dare you to run the image by Sturdivan and ask him if the Weisel bullet ricocheted off anything. I dare you!!

Bottom line – The ceiling tile ricochet shot hit neither Elizabeth Evans or William Weisel. Therefore you are back up to nine shots. You’re all done, Ayton.

Let me ask you a question, Mel. Why do you continue to post this unworkable scenario after having been educated on several occasions as to just how preposterous it is?? I would love to see you defend what you have written but it didn’t happen the last three times I posted this rebuttal. I’m confident that this time around, you will defend yourself. :-)

John Hunt

You are also still putting across your points in an angry and immature manner. Calm down and post sensibly, please. I assure you, your credibility will improve.

You will recall that Dan Moldea and Thomas Noguchi believed that no one could determine, for sure, the paths of the bullets or the exact positioning or angle of Sirhan’s gun relative to the paths.The crowd was in motion before and after the first shot.

In all your previous diagrams you have made ASSUMPTIONS in the form of 'stick figures' which does not do justice to the dynamics of the shooting and the positioning of Sirhan. You have all victims standing upright as if there is evidence that shows this. There isn’t. No one can reconstruct the location and posture of each person in the pantry at any given second. This is why I have only posited a ‘scenario’, one amongst many that can account for the victims’ wounds and the damage to the ceiling tiles.

As Sirhan started firing the crowd was moving, people were jerking backwards and forwards, some pantry witnesses were even pushed out of the swinging doors. There is no one who can give a precise diagram showing the positioning and angle of Sirhan's gun for all 8 shots - it is therefore impossible to show in which direction Sirhan's gun had been pointing by reference to the angle of the bullet entries to the victims, including RFK. Remember Frank Burns’ statement in which he said Sirhan’s gun was ‘pursuing’ RFK as the Senator was going down? If Sirhan fired at this moment described by Burns angles of bullet paths gauged with reference to RFK’s clothes and wounds would be meaningless. For example, as Noguchi said, “The senator had three gunshot wounds - a head wound behind his right ear and two through the right armpit. To reconstruct a scenario of the shooting, the gunshot wound to the head wouldn't tell us much, except how close the assailant may have been. We must remember the body is constantly moving, with arms, especially, changing position”.

A lot of the misunderstanding about the shooting rests on your general lack of knowledge about how crowds react during violent incidents. You do not factor in the dynamics of crowd movement and of how crowds can rapidly change direction and positioning in an instant (nor did the official investigators for that matter). This would have been especially true in the pantry shooting after the first shot when people reacted out of fear, shock and perhaps defensively. People in the pantry were also turning their heads to look for the source of the sounds; on realizing a gun had been fired some would have stumbled, fallen and crashed into objects around them and clashed with others in the crowd. The eyewitnesses and victims were busy covering up and falling all over each other.

We only have Elizabeth Evans’ guesses about her positioning when the first shot was fired. We do not know if her head had been tilted or if she had been pushed backwards following the first shot.There are any number of ways in which she could have been positioned which allowed the bullet to go ‘upwards’ through her scalp. I could have added in my post: “….or as Sirhan was grabbed by Uecker his gun could have been in an area below the waist and if Evans had been standing up or moving upwards when she was wounded this could have accounted for the angle of the bullet wound.”

You have, once more, engaged in a disingenuous ‘multiple postings routine’. I'm curious as to why the moderator would have allowed you to do that.Please stick to the original post so readers will not have to jump around.And please revise your stick figure diagrams – perhaps another diagram will show the victims in alternative positions to match the angles of the entry wounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mel, you are obviously correct that John's calling you "melvyn" is a bit childish. He does raise some valid questions, however. From the graphic, it seems possible that the Evans bullet could have entered her scalp from below while she was standing fairly upright. This would account for the tile holes and her injuries. But is this likely? I mean, this was a .22 bullet, with little mass and little energy. Is it really credible that a .22 bullet would enter a ceiling tile, deflect off a ceiling, go back through another ceiling tile, hit a tile floor, and deflect back up to the forehead of a standing woman, with the requisite amount of energy to break the skin? I don't know. If you've spoken to any ballistics experts about this, or conducted any tests, please let us know. It could be that the Evans bullet is more easily explained by some heretofore unexamined possibility. To find that possibility, however, we first need to separate what was likely to have happened from what we need to have happened to support the single-shooter theory. So, is the Evans double-deflection theory something you feel is likely or something you think is necessary? If the latter, perhaps we can discuss a few alternatives and see if there is some other way to explain the shooting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mel, you are obviously correct that John's calling you "melvyn" is a bit childish. He does raise some valid questions, however. From the graphic, it seems possible that the Evans bullet could have entered her scalp from below while she was standing fairly upright. This would account for the tile holes and her injuries. But is this likely? I mean, this was a .22 bullet, with little mass and little energy. Is it really credible that a .22 bullet would enter a ceiling tile, deflect off a ceiling, go back through another ceiling tile, hit a tile floor, and deflect back up to the forehead of a standing woman, with the requisite amount of energy to break the skin? I don't know. If you've spoken to any ballistics experts about this, or conducted any tests, please let us know. It could be that the Evans bullet is more easily explained by some heretofore unexamined possibility. To find that possibility, however, we first need to separate what was likely to have happened from what we need to have happened to support the single-shooter theory. So, is the Evans double-deflection theory something you feel is likely or something you think is necessary? If the latter, perhaps we can discuss a few alternatives and see if there is some other way to explain the shooting...

Pat,

Thank you for your sensible input. I have respected your views in the past and will continue to do so.

I agree that the circumstances of the shooting should be investigated further by, perhaps, a distinguished panel of experts, even though I believe Sirhan killed RFK and acted alone. I have accumulated evidence that points to this conclusion but I would not be foolish enough to say ‘Case Closed’. In fact, as there are anomalies in most murders one can never be 100% positive about any murder case. I also believe the House Assassinations Committee should have re-investigated the RFK murder in the late 1970s.

Neither you nor I really know the postures of the victims when the bullets hit or the angle of the gun when Sirhan fired. As soon as Sirhan reached RFK he was, of course, tackled by Karl Uecker who attempted to grab the gun – by this time Sirhan could have gotten off his first shot which hit Schrade. Sirhan then fired and hit RFK.

Lisa Urso, who was able to see both Kennedy and Sirhan, saw Kennedy’s hand move to his head behind his right ear. As the distance from Kennedy to the gun after the first “pop” was three feet, it is likely he had been simply reacting defensively to the first shot fired. Urso described Kennedy’s movements as “… (jerking) a little bit, like backwards and then forwards.” Moldea believes the backwards and forwards jerking occurred when Kennedy recoiled at the explosion of the first shot.

As RFK was turning, raising his arm and bending a little to protect himself, and reacting to the shot fired, he could then have been hit in the right armpit and the bullet lodged in his neck. RFK may then have been hit in the back and the bullet exited through his chest, traveling upwards to the ceiling where it was lost in the interspace. The next Kennedy bullet went through his shoulder pad but did not harm him. Where did this bullet go? Nobody can be sure – it purportedly went in an upward angle but - ergo my statement about the positioning of the victims and the angle of Sirhan’s gun when it was fired - if RFK was bent over and turning it may have hit another victim - Weisal for example.

In an instant RFK’s posture could have changed as he began to collapse after being hit twice. In the intense struggle with Uecker and others Sirhan’s gun could then have reached RFK’s head. Also, Sirhan’s gun was still firing as his hand was slammed on the serving table after having been grabbed by RFK’s friends, the gun was therefore positioned low. No witness saw RFK actually being shot.

If you factor in these plausibilities then 8 shots are still accounted for.

P.s. Let’s stick to the post ‘A Word From Melvyn’ – that way posters do not have to jump around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×