Ray Mitcham

21 hours ago, Terry Adams said:

Ron, I believe this is the first time that I have heard one of the attending doctors to outright say that one of their team was told to change his statement about a wound!

This is an amazing article.  What a shame that  such a talented surgeon, Dr. Malcom Perry,  no doubt very proud of what a career he had built for himself, had been badgered by a man, Secret Service, no less, to change his statement that the president had been shot from behind, instead of how he had believed, based on years of looking at gunshot wounds, that the shot to the throat came from the front.

It is also extremely sad that a person, while holding such a prestigious job title, as Secret Service Agent, Mr. Elmer Moore, simply because of his beliefs that President John F. Kennedy was soft on communism, was okay that the president could be killed and then agree to pressure a person who is a medial doctor to lie about how he was killed (all shots from behind). Mr Moore has admitted to having been ordered by his superiors to badger Dr. Perry into changing his statement.

https://crosscut.com/2017/11/john-f-kennedy-assassination-files-seattle-trump-release-shooters

Part of the article.

"

Critics questioned how, based on some forensic findings, a bullet fired from the sixth floor to the ground level entered Kennedy’s back and then traveled upward to exit through the throat. Perry apparently wondered, too. Three years after the surgeon’s death, Miller (A fellow surgeon) claimed in a little-noticed 2012 blog post that Perry doubted the scenario. The author of three books and a frequent writer on current medical and political topics, Miller wrote:

“Fifteen years [after the shooting], Dr. Perry told me in a surgeon-to-surgeon private conversation that the bullet wound in Kennedy’s neck was, without question, a wound of entrance, irrespective of what he had told the Warren Commission.

“This seasoned attending trauma surgeon had seen a lot of gunshot wounds at Parkland Hospital and knew what he was talking about. Dr. Perry also told this ‘off the record’ truth to another physician, Dr. Robert Artwohl, in 1986.”

Artwhol, an Anchorage surgeon who wrote an online post about their conversation, stated that Perry told him that “[o]ne of the biggest regrets in his life was having to make the incision for the emergency tracheotomy through the bullet wound… Speaking with Dr. Perry that night, one physician to another, Dr. Perry stated he firmly believed the wound to be an entrance wound.”

But, Miller said in his blog that after agent Moore and others pressured Perry to alter his story, “This otherwise bold surgeon backed down and obligingly changed his testimony to suit the politically ordered truth that Oswald did it.”"

58 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Photo editing occurs when you change an image.  There are no shadows involved with this tire on the left or west side of the tire.  Look under the vehicle if you have good eyes and you will see the shadow of the tire.  This is clear image alteration.

The photo editor who did this didn't alter the tire.  He altered the whole image of the presidential limousine by substituting an image of the presidential limousine from another circumstance.  His mistake was the image over lay was larger than the original image.  This size imbalance shows up in the mismatched aspect of the tire.

This is my last comment on this.  This is just a distraction from the real thread which is about shooting in the intersection of Elm and Houston Street and the 50 witnesses who said that.

If you want to continue with this lone gunner distraction go right ahead. 

Nobody altered the image. It's all in your mind, John. You    seem to be obsessed with the alleged alteration of photos, despite being shown how wrong you are. You don't even understand telephoto lenses. You say that Altgens 6 has been cropped. Where did you get this notion?

Now you are saying that somebody for some unknown nefarious reason,  has altered the shape of the limo tire. Are you completely mad or just pretending?

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

It's like my old man used to say after a puncture; "It's only flat on the bottom" ; )

😁

4 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

The Limo tyres do look out of round and show angular aspects near the pavement

Quite right, Tony. I wonder if it might have anything to do with the weight of the limo.😀

Just shows how incompetent the doctors at Parkland were, Rick.😂

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

My, My, My.  You boys should have been on the original photo editing team.  Then we wouldn't have this problem.

Chris,

Your argument is irrational.  This is the photo Altgens 5.  The Muchmore and Hughes film has nothing to do with Altgens 5.  The vehicle was on Houston Street not Elm Street.

Tony,

Your artwork is simply artwork and no more.  There is no shadow at the bottom of the tire.  Look at the following crop where the brightness is increased.  You can see the actual shape of the tire.  No shadows!  You can see where the tire treads go down to and meet the pavement.

Jeremy,

I think you live in a world of your own imagination.  Try the truth sometimes.  It is refreshing.  As far as the trool Ray Meacham, he is not worth talking to.

 

 

Quote by Butler

"As far as the trool Ray Meacham, he is not worth talking to."

What is a "trool" and who is "Ray Meacham"?You can't even get the spellings correct  let alone any of your make believe evidence of photo alteration.

42 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

Thanks Tony. Won't make any difference to Mr Magoo, though. 

16 hours ago, John Butler said:

There are certain categories of people who will believe what is seen here is a shadow effect and not an image overlay.  These are Lone Nuts, secret Lone Nuts, fools, the pent-x( can't use this word for a creature living under a bridge and later comes out to harass) and the quad-x (Can't use that word either.  This is a person who distorts reality with their false statements.)

This is a clear case of image alteration and anyone who says differently has an agenda to distort the truth.

There are certain people in this world who seem to exist totally out of it. They see things that don't exist and invent "facts" that are totally wrong. 

"This is a clear case of image alteration" Only in your mind, soft lad. Perhaps you could try to explain why anybody would alter the shadows of a car tire and of spectators..

52 minutes ago, John Butler said:

So much for Altgens 5.  Why would this photo be altered?

It's not altered, you prat. It's the shadow making it look like that. But then you have always had problems with shadows haven't you, John?

5 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Many thanks to Rick McTague for his re-enactment Altgen's photo.

 

Won't make any difference to Mr Magoo, Chris.

Thanks Tony. Must have taken some time to prepare the montage. It certainly shows the line of sight if you line up the landmarks. I don't think I have to add anything to your composite which shows the limited field of view of Altgens camera. It certainly shows where the Stemmons sign was in relation to the photo.

Still don't think that it will make any difference to Mr Butler as he is wedded to his belief that the photograph was faked.

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

In the video that comes up on the top right of the screen when you first access this link in Adam Johnson's post above, there is Dealey Plaza film of JFK in the limo after he has been hit in the back/throat and is leaning into Jackie and a micro-second later JFK's head explodes.

This film was taken by someone standing behind the group of bystanders that included the Babushka Lady. This group is right next to the Elm street curb and so close to JFK when he is hit in the head.

My question is about the quite tall man in this group who is wearing a white shirt and who is right in front of the Babushka Lady.

Has this person ever been identified? Did he ever come forward?

He was closer to JFK during the shots than the Babushka Lady and as close as Mary Moorman and Jean Hill.

Who was that guy?

Joe it could be Charles Brehm who was there with his small son.

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

Another Mitcham idiocy,

Can you see the trees in the photos behind the little girl?  Even in the blowup, supposedly a telephoto shot, the tree is still there.  Why?  Because it is behind the little girl.

Yes because they are within the field of view of the telephoto lens.

Quote

The Stemmons sign should be in view behind the presidential limousine and is not.  It is not in front of the vehicle or off to the side.  There is no camera angle or trick that can account for that.

Totally and completely wrong.

This Roberdeaus' Dealey Plaza sketch showing the field of view of Altgens 6. (from the objects shown in the photo)Note that neither the Stemmons Street sign or the Thornton Sign are within the field of view shown. (The Stemmons Street sign has an arrow pointing to it.) Just click on to enlarge to see in more detail.

53 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

This is the same dumb argument I have heard for nearly 4 years, from you and others.  Since, I first brought this up.  Your field of view is too narrow.  There is no way you can compare Altgens 6 with Zapruder 255.  Look and study what I presented.  It hasn't changed.  I you can't find a sign that is clearly somewhere around 25 to 40 feet behind the presidential limousine that what can you find?   What can you find when Altgens is in the middle of the road filming toward the TSBD! 

In your case nothing.  Your field of view is too narrow!  If Robin Unger couldn't convince me of that you surely can't.  What I showed indicates neither Altgens 6 or Zapruder are reliable.

This will be the only time I respond to you.  Your trolling efforts will go unnoticed.  I really should look up how to keep from seeing your posts.

This is really off Jim Hargroves topic and I suggest going back to that rather than debate something I've discussed many times before..   

This is a photo showing the differences in field of view from a wide angle to a telephoto lens. Note how in the telephoto lens photo the little boy has disappeared NOT because of any alteration to the photo but due to the narrowness of the field of view of the lens. the same thing happened in Z6. The field of view was too narrow to show either of the street signs. but you are too dumb to realise it. 

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

The Zapruder Film is a fraud.  A fake.  It really can't be used for much of anything.  This has been debated many times before.  Where was the presidential limousine in Altgens 6 as compares to the Zapruder Film.

These two film frames from Zapruder show a unique fact.  The Stemmons sign is behind the presidential limo in frame 238.  In frame 255, which is the favored frame for comparison to Altgens 6, you can not see the Stemmons sign because it is behind the presidential limo. 

Can you find the Stemmons sign behind the presidential limo in Altgens 6.

And, where is it in Altgens 6?  Altgens is in the middle of the road taking this photo!

Lone Gunners and a good many conspiracy theorists will not look at this argument.  It violates all sense of meaningfulness for them.  Robert Groden is a prime example.  There are many on the forum who will respond bitterly to this unique presentation holding to the notion that the Zapruder Film is real, factual, and untainted by editing.

Ronnie, the Pent-x, brings this argument back up.  Why I don't know except he perhaps is one of the folks that fall into the above category.  I won't use one of his favorite terms "horse carp". 

 

John, I hate to come in again to show where you are wrong, but you don't seem to learn.

The reason the Stemmons sign isn't in Altgens 6 is because the field of view of his camera wasn't large enough to include it. If the Stemmons sign had been in the shot you would have seen the Western end of the TSBD in view. As it is you can only see the middle of the South side of the TSBD, where the third dividing buttress (between the windows in the centre of the South face of the building) can only be seen. Even the Thornton Sign isn't in the photo, the field of view is so narrow.

Video on you Tube.

Duplicate post.

Andrej, in the stick model, his right foot is not directly under his head  as it appears in the photo. It needs moving to our right, or to his left. This will make a huge difference.

And what makes you think his left leg should be raised?

1 hour ago, Bart Kamp said:

Precisely my point Raymond.

Happy birthday guvnor!!!

Thanks, Bart.

1 hour ago, Bart Kamp said:

 

 

Pigeons.  Pages 22-25

Bart, I've always said that pigeons rising from a roof shows only that a loud noise was made, from somewhere close,  not that it was from the place they were perching. Any rifle shot in the vicinity of Dealey Plaza would have the same reaction by the pigeons. They would have just flown off. Baker's comment that he went into the TSBD because of he birds reaction is a lot of hooey. They would have risen no matter where in Dealey the shot emanated.

10 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

Ray, you will be able to see it next week.

Thanks for the reply, Denis.

15 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

Anybody still thinks the lady in the middle is Calvery? I have a December 1963 photo showing Westbrook and Calvery taken in the Southwest Publishing Company offices. They show that neither of these women are Calvery or Westbrook. I also have a few of Gloria Holt proving without the shadow of a doubt that it is her in the middle. I showed the image above to Ms. Holt's brother who confirmed this is his sister.

Denis Morissette

JFK Assassination Fact Checker

Can you publish the said photos, Denis?

It cost $20m to set up and then the cat was hit by a car, ten feet from where it was released. 🤣

Could it have been Oswald, as Mr Campbell said he saw Os just inside the small cupboard in the vestibule, after the shooting?