Ray Mitcham

Quote by  Jim De E "In the first part its pretty obvious that Oswald was leafleting to leftist groups in hopes of snuffing out some Castro sympathizers."

I sincerely hope you meant "sniffing out", Jim. "Snuffing out" seems a bit over the top.😎

19 hours ago, John Butler said:

This photo can't be the north wall.  The north wall has only 3 windows widely spaced over 100 feet per floor.  The TSBD is a square building with 100 feet per side.  Here in this photo we see 3 windows in less than half, looks to be about 30-40 feet, the distance across the TSBD.  I don't know which directions the floor boards, joists, and I-beams run but, they need to be rechecked.  This shows the southeast corner of the TSBD on the 6th floor. 

Quote by John Butler "The north wall has only 3 windows widely spaced over 100 feet per floor." No. The North side of the TSBD has 5 windows across its width. 

The blue line shown as "The Elevators" on Jim's photo covers too much area for the elevators. The horizontal blue line is just past the second row of columns, which is way too far from the North wall, as the floor plan of the first floor shows the elevators coming out only level with the first row of columns.

"I have no intention to [sic] responding to your bullying tactics other than this one message.,"

Not bullying, John. Just pointing out yet another cock up by you.

The Daltex is opposite the East side of the TSBD. So the first two photos can't be showing the East side of the TSBD.

The first photo shows the West side of the TSBD in sunlight, as does the second.  North Side in shadow.

How do you explain the buildings behind?

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

The TSBD was remodeled in 1981-1986.  The appearance of the east face changed from the 1960s appearance to the post-1981-86 appearance after the remodeling.

Tony is correct for the post-1981 appearance.  But, not for an earlier appearance.  I hope these images are clear enough to see the differences pre and post modeling. 

Andrej,

Someone needs to find the plans for the elevator shaft.  I wouldn't know where to look.  That would solve a lot of problems with its appearance and function.

The shaft is shown on the 5th floor plans and no structures for a venting system shown on the 6th floor plans.  There is just the one photo, where you don't see anything, to suggest a vent to the outside via the window.  As I said earlier it could be a metallic cart for moving boxes.  It doesn't appear so to me.  But, I occasionally have to dine on crow due to my over enthusiasm and rushed responses.

The pre-1981 version of the TSBD had only 5 arched windows on the southern face.  The post 1981-86 version has 10 arched windows as shown in the right hand photo.  5 on the south face and now 5 on the east face.  Any photo showing arched windows rather than rectangular is pre-1981.  So, the interior photo that I posted earlier has to be pre-1981 and as advertised by the 6th floor museum showing the 6th floor in the 1960s. 

The above first two photos show the West side of the building Not the East side.

Posting derogatory comments, by banned members, of this forum, about anybody, poster or regulator, on this forum should not be allowed. It has nothing to do with free speech. It is common courtesy, and is a form of cowardice by the posters here, who do so on this board, who seem to use the comments as a proxy form of insult. There is usually a very good reason why the banned member have been banned, and there is no good reason to allow their comments to be rebroadcast here.

1 hour ago, Ian Lloyd said:

When you measured using the "standard US brick", did you include for the mortar line between each course of bricks (possibly 1/2" - 1")?

I believe the mortar bed was usually 1/4" thick.

In the video of Darren Brown, how did the subjects stand lying in a bath of freezing cold water under a trance if the were faking it? The infra red images showed how cold their bodies had become in the freezing water.

Ron, I was talking to a friend of mine who is a Professor,  in Criminal Psychology who appears on many British t.v programmes about various murders and he insisted that nobody can be hypnotised to murder somebody, until I showed him this programme by a hypnotist  well known in the U.K. Darren Brown,  where he hypnotised a guy to "murder" a  famous t.v. star whilst the star was on stage. He now doubts his first opinion.See this.

20 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Apparently, on this forum (whose moderators are conspiracy believers) conspiracy theorists can insult those who disagree with them at will, They can mock whomever they want. They risk nothing. But if I post just a bit of humor, Mister Mark Knight feels the need to block the thread and then threatens me to expell me from the forum (so easy to brag through a computer screen !…).
OK.
I'm leaving.
For good.
I bet some people will be happy.
Good luck to everybody ! 
I wish you well !

Don't go Francois, You give us too many laughs.

On 2/18/2019 at 11:31 AM, David Von Pein said:

I can agree with your points here. You make sense. (Except for the part about it probably being LHO.)

But my previous point was ---- there's no way we can TOTALLY ELIMINATE the possibility of PM being a "stranger".

But nobody saw a stranger on the steps, so, according to your logic,  if nobody said they saw Oswald on the steps, he couldn't have been there,   so it couldn't have been a stranger, David

Thanks, Gary. Look forward to reading it. Well done.

According to the latest argument from the gullible, as nobody reported seeing a stranger on the top of the steps, that means it couldn't have been a stranger. So it must have been an employee.

On 2/15/2019 at 10:11 PM, Chris Bristow said:

John, I am not saying that the examples were it bloomed in February and did not bloom by March 21st can tell you what happened March of 63. what it does tell you is that the  possibilities of when it bloomed can range from February to after March 21st. So the bushes on 3/31/63 could have been bare or bloomed. That makes it impossible to determine the date by the lack of blooming. If there is a record of when it bloomed in 63' maybe this could be resolved. I could not find records other than daily cloud and rainfall, temp etc. If it bloomed in February or March of 63' you would have an interesting case. But Jack White claiming it does not bloom by March is factually wrong. The Google Earth map showed it blooming in February. 

"Shadows change their directions simply because they fall on different surfaces.  Give me a break!"

  When a shadow falls on a surface that is slanted it changes the appearance of shadow angles. Anyone can test this very easily. Take a piece of paper and a pen. stand below a light and hold the pen and paper so you see the shadow of the pen on the paper. Now change the angle of the paper a bit. You will see the shadow angle change as you change the angle of the surface it falls on. the photo shows a radical example with angle 90s degrees apart. 
  Here is a photography site that shows this principle. http://www.betterphotography.in/features/shadow-theatre/6222/attachment/bob-smith_us/

Since you believe people are spouting dis information you should test this for yourself with the paper and pen experiment I mentioned above. 

EDIT:
Also the telephone line shadow on the post demonstrates how it changes it's 'apparent angle from West face to it's South face. But if you suspect it or any of the images I posted are shopped you can just look at your own image in your member photo. The shadow of your face that lands below your right shoulder changes angles as it travels across the fold in your shirt.  

John doesn't believe in tests. He never tried the post shadow experiment which was suggested to him.

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

I wasn't going to post here again since I thought this thread would die after Bristow's gobbledygook response to my last post.  Let the readers decide has always been my motivation to such nonsense.

But, then he comes up with this.  ".  If you remember during the 1970's we were in a global cooling era and a new Ice Age was soon to begin.  Then we were in a global warming era during the 1990s until the present if some are to be believed.  According to some we have 12 years to live as life on earth dies from climate change.  And, to others the earth has been cooling since 2006 when people begin to be reported as freezing to death in China.  This is the time when cold record temperatures on all of the continents were beginning to be being set.  You figure it out.

It is my opinion you can not link current weather patterns or early 2000s weather patterns to the 1960s on such a minute scale for prediction of the weather in the spring of 1963.

I take Jack White at his word about how things were in Dallas during the springs of his life time.  He said March is not the blooming month.  April is.  I agree for the year 1969 for the time I was in Texas.

OBTW, I think more than a 1963 shrub should be water boarded.  There are other things around in 63 that should be included.

 

Butler. "Does whatever happened in 2001 and 2002 have anything to do with what happened in the Spring of 1963?"

Chris "But google Earth shows that in 2001 it bloomed in February and in 2002 it had not bloomed  by March. 23! "

It wasn't gobbledygook (except maybe just to you.)Chris was just showing you that the growth in 1961 was different to the growth in 1962, and means it could be different in 1963. Seems you disagree.

25 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Sure. And the fact that NOBODY saw Oswald outside, can YOU comprehend that ?

Were they looking for him, Francois? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even you must comprehend that.

Add together Ochus Campbell seeing Oswald in the small locker room within the vestibule, seems to confirm, that Os was there then. As for it destroying Prayerman theory, this is ridiculous as Oswald, just had to move into the vestibule after the assassination, but then I think that may be too much for Francois to comprehend.

2 hours ago, Robert Harper said:

Thanks Gene for a succinct gathering of the info on Pena. Hernandez always gave me the creeps and, I think I mentioned once before, that the recording of him pestering - torturing - Sandy Serrano to change her testimony bugged me so much I couldn't finish listening to it. That the CIA  had tentacles into the Dallas and Los Angeles Police is disturbing  on its face; that they were used to cover both killings is yet another reason to , as JFK said, "break the CIA into a thousand pieces." 

For those who haven't heard it yet, here is a video of the interrogation.

1 minute ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Ray:

an excellent quotation from this rare book which I did not read and maybe many other researcher neither. So, the officer and Truly left Oswald on the first floor before continuing upstairs. This is another confirmation of the true course of events.

Exactly my way of thinking, Andrej. Things are getting murkier. We await Langley's response.

32 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

So, you are quoting a policeman who confronted Oswald inside the building, right ?

Yes. Note the end of the paragraph.

The man who said he was the building superintendent was outside and met me at the door and went in with me. Shortly after I entered the building, I confronted Oswald. The man who identified himself as the superintendent said that Oswald was alright, that he was employed there. We left Oswald there, and the supervisor showed me the way upstairs.

i.e After he had seen Oswald they went upstairs. Sort of blows his Warren testimony out of the water.

From Gary Savage's book, “First day evidence”

"OFFICER E"

It had been a long escort. We had  lot of people all the way. There were no problems, just a heavy crowd and a lot of yelling and cheering, and the motors were getting hot.When you follow the lead, you do a lot of starting and stopping, trying to hold an interval. I was glad it was almost over.

The crowd was real heavy, down on the end of the downtown area, but just past Dealey Plaza, it would open up and we would be on the freeway and just a few minutes from the Trade Mart. The front of the motorcade started blocking up in the crowd in those last turns coming off Main and turning onto Elm. Back on Houston where we were, we were just about stopped and moving real slow when we could move.

A little past halfway down Houston (between Main and Elm) I heard the first shot. I could tell it came from somewhere in front of me and high. As I looked up I noticed all the pigeons flushed off the top of the building on the corner ahead of me. And in the same period I heard the second shot, and then the third one. I couldn’t see just where the shots came from but I knew they were from a high powered rifle. I hunt a lot, and had just got back from hunting. There was no mistaking that there were three shots, that’s for sure. Though I didn't see exactly where the shots came from. I knew in my own mind they probably came from the corner building as the sound was right and because of the pigeons. So i headed there, got off my motor and entered the building (the Texas School Depository) It tooma  while because of the crowd; they had started moving in every direction.

The man who said he was the building superintendent was outside and met me at the door and went in with me. Shortly after I entered the building, I confronted Oswald. The man who identified himself as the superintendent said that Oswald was alright, that he was employed there. We left Oswald there, and the supervisor showed me the way upstairs. We couldn’tt get anyone to send the elevator down. In giving the place a quick check, I found nothing out of the ordinary, so started back down to see what had happened. Not knowing for sure what had happened. I was limited in what I could legally do.

The investigator from Washington contacted me for my recollection of what had happened, but I guess they weren’t interested in what I said.

Who on Earth could officer E have been?

Any guesses? Marion Baker anyone?

Review of Gary Savage's book.

9 December 2009

9 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Regarding my last sentence. In your photo it converges toward the Sun but I was talking about when the Sun is at your back and the shadows converge away from the Sun.

Thanks Chris. Agreed, as shown in this photo which I also posted.

It is impossible to work out the time that the photos were taken without knowing the precise lengths of "Oswald's" shadows. 

For those who still disbelieve, here is another photo simulating the position of "Oswald" and the stair post which shows the shadow of the "stair post" (the pole on the left) in the same region as the stair post in the BYP., and which shows the shadows converging. rather than diverging.

Q.E.D.

35 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

I think the format we use here prevents us from reaching mutual conclusions. If we asked one question at a time it would be more like real time conversations. "Do you think a or b?". "I think b with this caveat.". If the conversation proceeded along these lines we would resolve some issues rather than go round and round . 
 Josephs statement "the angle at which the stair post is casting a shading CONFLICTS with the shadow of the man in the image...."  has been taken to mean that the post shadow and body shadows diverge back towards the Sun and that that is impossible. If this is what Joseph's intended meaning is, then Ray's response regarding vanishing point causing shadows to converge behind Oswald and diverge toward the Sun is relative to this point at hand. His response was not an unwarranted diversion from the main topic, it was a slight diversion addressing Joseph's sub topic. 
 I believe we all agree that shadows converging is a matter of perspective. the question is do shadows appear to converge away from the Sun or phrased differently do shadows appear to diverge towards the Sun? 
 This super simple question is something that we should not debate in multiple thread. So lets make a real effort to resolve this issue. It takes almost no effort to walk outside and place two objects on the ground and see if shadows APPEAR to converge away from the Sun(diverge towards the Sun). Or if you have a chain link fence just look at two poles. It is amazing that we could argue over this in many threads when we could resolve it and MOVE ON. For anyone that believes that the post and body shadows diverging towards the Sun is wrong, Please please go outside and check this claim before weighing in on it. Please don't respond with "I don't need to cause I no better". If you go outside and find you are correct then  I will get a major education that is crucial to my understanding of perspective. If I am wrong I will welcome the new knowledge, but when I go outside I find shadows do diverge back to the Sun.
 

Thank you Chris. It's exactly what Michael and I have been saying. but they seem to be unable to carry out a simple experiment. When they do, I hope they come back and describe their experience. However, I believe you meant converge rather than diverge  in your last sentence, as is shown in my post photo. 

https://postimg.cc/rzdmZ9y1][/url

7 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Ray.  I'll have to admit you are one crafty old dude.  You have managed to side track this topic twice and as you have done with others with your crappy ideas. 

It's time to get back onto the Krome topic of the timing of the BYPs.  Krome notice there was a seasonality difference in 133-A, allegedly taken in March, and the 1967 CBS reproduction which is documented to March 31, 1967.  The second, the 1967 photo, has cold weather depredation of foliage while the 1963 133-A shrub has foliage. 

What is you opinion of the timing of the BYPs or do you have no interest in that? 

I have no intention of sidetracking any subject, but I will interject when somebody posts information which is false. Maybe you don't have the same ethos as I. As for my crappy ideas. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I have very interest in the actual time of the photographs, which if they are fake, as I believe, would show they were fake.

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

You refuse to understand this simple diagram by offering "facts" to dispute it. [/quote]

No, I present photos which prove it, not sketches by some unknown incompetent poster

Your argument goes a long ways toward explaining some of our arguments in the past.  At one point I accused you of being a secret Lone Gunner.  And, you denied this.  I took your word for that at the time.  But, that point keeps popping up from time to time.  Sorry.

Once again you show your total lack of understanding of anything. You are either blind or ignorant of my past record of posting on various forums.

Sorry, Michael.  Willfully ignorant is another way of saying he is a xxxx.  Everyone knows what quad-x is and covers over.  Oh?  Didn't you tell me to shut up?

You haven't answered my question. Where did call you a "XXXX"?

[/quote]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Do you fellas have another agenda other than legitimate jfk research?  I don't know of anyone other than you two that would argue against the above information of Josephs as being inaccurate.  The parallel lines do not converge or touch.  The third cactus shadow may appear to but, magnify and you will see the lines come to a vanishing point without convergence which you have defined as touching.

You've hitched your wagon to the wrong star, John. Whilst DJ provides much valuable contributions to this and other forums, he is totally wrong about this.