Ray Mitcham
-
Posts
1,867 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Ray Mitcham
-
-
Grasping at straw yet again, Dave. Now explain how S.A.Bennett happened to see a bullet hole in the President's jacket, four inches down from his right shoulder.
-
double post
-
Mathias, apparently there are voice recordings of Khashoggi being dismembered by Saudi thugs.
The Turks cannot release all the evidence they have, as it would disclose how much they were bugging the Saudi Embassy.
The Saudi's will probably blame one of the thugs doing it on their own whim.
-
20 minutes ago, François Carlier said:
Still haven't made the effort to read the books (or even one of the books) that explain everything scientifically and with logic and common sense, and answer all your easy questions, then Ray ?
Come on Francois. You can do better than that.You quote at least three authors, Posner, ( a proven plagiarist who lied through his teeth in his book Case Closed) Bugliosi, (an author who wrote his book as a prosecution brief rather than a true investigation.) and DVP (and I don't have to say what I think of his writings)
Give me your refutations if you have any, of the evidence of the back shot was in the President's shoulder rather than his neck.
-
Still no arguments to rebut the evidence of a back wound rather than a neck wound, then, Francois?
-
He has some very good points to make about Tippitt's family. Certainly worth buying.
-
5 hours ago, Tom Neal said:
Thanks Gene,
"Into the Nightmare" has been on my 'purchase list' for quite a while. Now seems the time to take the plunge.
A question for you: Do you have the print version or the ebook? Replacing my print books with ebooks has been a high priority with me for quite some time. Required book shelves for storage and the occasional time-wasting search for the print book...and I'm allergic to dust. The upside of Print books is the photos which are frequently not included in Ebook versions.
The Ebook Search Function is invaluable.
If you have the Print book, are the pictures rare enough to justify purchase?
If you have the Ebook, are the photos included?Thanks for any info,
Tom
Hi Tom, Yes the ebook has photos in it.
-
5 hours ago, François Carlier said:
Sir, first of all, I do not NEGATE any evidence. So, if you want to have a fair and respectful debate with me, start with avoiding defaming me !
Second of all, well, I too started as a conspiracy believer, when I was young. I was 22 years old when I bought the book "Best evidence" by David Lifton, which was my first book on the case, ("High treason" by Groden and Livingstone being the second book I bought, and Mark Lane's "Reasonable doubt" being the third, and I now own 150+ of them).
I was influenced by those authors at the time. I believed them (well, to be precise, I believed the overall idea of a conspiracy and a cover-up, since they themselves did not agree with each other, but that's another story).
Then, being open-minded and using common sense, logic, critical thinking and honesty over the years, I had to acknowledge that I had been wrong and that the evidence pointed unequivocally to Lee Oswald. He was the assassin. There had not been any conspiracy. All the seemingly "loose ends" could be explained away and the theories debunked by common sense, logic and critical thinking. Period.
I am not the only one to have opened his eyes and to have agreed to admit that the official version is the truth.
Lance Payette and Fred Litwin have followed the same path. And so many others whom I know, famous or not, in France or in the United States !
What do I think of the back wound ? Well, I wrote about it at length in my book (you may not be aware of it but I am the author of one of the most comprehensive books ever written on the JFK assassination, unfortunately, my book is in French and hasn't been translated yet). But neither in my book nor in my speeches have I had anything special to say. I have no theory. I have no particular opinion. I only say what scientists say. I most certainly don't pretend to have found "shocking new evidence", as most conspiracy theorists usually do.
If you want to know what I think, read the following books :
Mel Ayton, The JFK assassination : dispelling the myths, Woodfield Publishing, 2002
Mel Ayton with David Von Pein, Beyond reasonable doubt, Strategic Media Books, 2014
Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming history, Norton, 2007
Gerald Posner, Case closed, Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1993
Larry Sturdivan, The JFK myths, Paragon House, 2005
And I mean, read them ! Don't just skim through them. Dont open them with a closed mind. Just read them and pay attention and try to understand.
Trust me, you'll have the answers to all your questions !Oh dear, don't get your culottes in a twist, Francois. Show me where I defamed you. I asked you or DVP for your evidence of how you would negate the back wound. How do you explain the holes in the President's jacket and shirt, and the evidence of those who saw the hole in the shoulder, immediately after he was shot, together with the autopsy sheet evidence.
-
14 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:
Thank you, Cory.
It is funny!
It's funny when people claim that physical evidence not found with the body trumps physical evidence found with the body.
Or that improperly produced autopsy material trumps properly produced autopsy material.
Or more than a dozen witnesses -- including the contemporaneous notes of 4 Federal agents -- don't count, for no reason at all other than the statements run counter to someone's True Belief.
Laughter and derision are the only justifiable responses to such concentrated ignorance.
Seconded, Cliff. Let's hear from DVP or Francois how they negate the evidence of a shot in the back rather than the neck. Should be interesting.
-
11 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
The photos in the composite below should suffice.
Hopefully, the "obvious" won't escape you here....
Dave, you still haven't indicated where you think the bullet went in and came out. Showing photos proves nothing. Where's your notation?
Just so I don't misunderstand your position.
-
16 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
No, the bullet entered the UPPER part of JFK's head, just exactly as this autopsy photo proves....
Wanna look at a picture?....
"Entered the upper part of the head", and exited where, Dave?
Just interested to know exactly where you think the bullet went in and then came out. Surely with your skills and experience, you have a photo or sketch showing showing what you mean. Even a couple of arrows on the photo you have provided, would be sufficient.
-
Anyway, DCM is in the wrong position in the above photo, Cory. He was further West down the freeway beyond the Sign.
-
IMO Dr Humes obeyed his orders and did and said what was required of him in the presence of the Gold Braid brigade conducting the autopsy. e.g. "Don't follow the track of the bullet as the family wouldn't like it'
-
So according to your view, the bullet entered the head low down at the back, travelled upwards and blew the top of the President's head off and then continued to strike the curb in front of Tague.
Wanna buy a bridge?
-
If Tague was hit by the third bullet as suggested by the Warren report, it must have been a fourth shot which blew the hole in the President's head.
Or are they suggesting that the third shot hit his head then may have then ricoched to hit Tague?
-
And strange they were standing just where the yellow lines had been newly painted on the Elm St freeway curbs. Another amazing coincidence?
-
11 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:
What does the last sentence of this article mean?
I assume you mean this Paul.
"With former Gestapo officers calling all the shots, Germany would never have become the stable democracy that it is."
I take it mean that unlike Germany, Russia hasn't been able to get rid of "its" Gestapo, and will find it very difficult to ever become a democracy. -
This by one of Kavanaugh's buddies."
We were college classmates and drinking buddies with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. In the past week, all three of us decided separately to respond to questions from the media regarding Brett's honesty, or lack thereof. In each of our cases, it was his public statements during a Fox News TV interview and his sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that prompted us to speak out.
We each asserted that Brett lied to the Senate by stating, under oath, that he never drank to the point of forgetting what he was doing. We said, unequivocally, that each of us, on numerous occasions, had seen Brett stumbling drunk to the point that it would be impossible for him to state with any degree of certainty that he remembered everything that he did when drunk.
Watch more
Since coming forward, we each have received numerous angry messages accusing us of attempting to ruin a man's life because of his drunken antics as a college student. In fact, none of us condemned Brett for his frequent drunkenness. We drank too much in college as well. It is true that Brett acknowledged he sometimes drank "too many beers." But he also stated that he never drank to the point of blacking out.
By coming forward, each of us has disrupted our own lives and those of our families. As well as navigating the intense media interest, including having news vans and reporters set up in front of the home of one of us, we have received large amounts of hate mail, including threats of violence. We have lost friendships. The work servers of one of us were hacked.
He's just won the vote. Seems you will be getting a li ar on the bench of the Supreme Court.
"
-
My reading of Mr Niederhut's post, doesn't appear to me he is accusing anybody of taking money. It seems to me it was just one of two alternative suggestions.
"My question. What motivates people like Litwin and Parnell to engage in propagating this kind of disinformazia?
Not lack of intelligence, because both are, obviously, good writers.
Money? Some sort of misguided moral or political agenda?"
-
15 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
Of course. Why not?
Connally was certainly still able to pivot around in his seat as late as the Z270s and Z280s (see Z275 below), and you surely aren't going to suggest to me (as some CTers have done) that Governor Connally hasn't yet been hit in his back with a bullet even as late as Z275....are you? (And also please take note of the fact that Mr. Connally is still holding his Stetson hat in Zapruder Frame #275 as well, debunking yet another long-standing myth endorsed by conspiracy theorists.)
Z275....
Connolly to the WC.
"
We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.
In Altgens6 , JFK appears to have been hit, and Connolly has turned, as he said to his right, in his testimony. I know you don't believe him, but the photo confirms his statement.
-
On 10/2/2018 at 3:42 AM, David Von Pein said:
Yes, it probably is (although we could engage in a two-hour debate on the subject of "jiggle analysis" as well). But I wasn't counting Mr. Zapruder HIMSELF when tallying up the number of witnesses who exhibited startle reactions in Dealey Plaza. I was only thinking about the physical reactions we could actually see on the people whom Zapruder was filming.
We're talking about two different things, David. I'm looking for true "startle" reactions in the Dealey Plaza witnesses that we see in the Z-Film and the photos ---- not merely REACTIONS. I'm looking for sharp, jerky, "flinch"-like reactions. There's nothing "jerky" from the witnesses in the Z-Film at all that I can detect---except, of course, for John Connally's flinching and grimacing and hat-flipping and mouth-opening and lapel-bulging at Z224—Z226, which is when Lee Oswald's SBT bullet was crashing through his body (which is a shot that Connally did not HEAR at all; he only FELT it; so now we're talking about yet a third different type of "reaction", one that does not include the sense of hearing at all).
But Rosemary Willis' reaction is not a "startle" reaction at all. Not even close. And Hickey's, Landis', and Ready's reactions aren't "startle" reactions either. They are simply "reactions"---period. They heard a shot (or shots) and are reacting to the source of the noise(s)---which was, of course, the TSBD, the building the SS agents are staring directly at at circa Z255. But apparently the fact those agents are turned and looking right at the front door of the Depository means nothing to many CTers, who seem to now want to believe that NO shots had been fired from that building by Z255, which is quite a bizarre stance, IMO.
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Startle+Reactions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN A RELATED NOVEMBER 2014 INTERNET DISCUSSION, A CONSPIRACY THEORIST NAMED MIKE SAID:
It is OBVIOUS that John Connally is exhibiting a STARTLE reaction to something that occurred on his LEFT side.
His RAPID head movement to his LEFT and associated hat flip are all synchronous with JFK's movement of his hands to his throat.
IT IS OBVIOUS to anyone who seriously looks at the film.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But this so-called "startle reaction" that you are describing could not POSSIBLY be the result of an actual BULLET striking Governor Connally's body at that point in time on the Zapruder Film, right Mike?
The "startle reaction" can ONLY be the result of Connally reacting to something whizzing by him---but definitely NOT hitting him. Is that your position?
And I find it quite remarkable that the point in time in the Z-Film when the conspiracy believers think Connally actually WAS hit by a bullet, which was in the Z230s according to most conspiracy theorists, we don't see any kind of "jerky" arm movements or "flinching/hunching" of JBC's shoulders (which is what we do see from Z225 to about Z230 or so).
So what we have here, per the CTers, is a situation which has John Connally exhibiting far MORE "jerky" movements BEFORE he was actually struck by the bullet than he does just after he was actually hit by the high-speed missile.
Kind of funny, isn't it?
Actually, it's quite hilarious. But, then too, watching the conspiracy theorists deny the obviousness of the Single-Bullet Theory has always been a rather amusing thing to witness.More....
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-833.htmlAnd some more....
Hey, Dave, can you explain why, in Altgens6, Connolly is turning to his right, as he said, after the first shot which hit JFK? Would he be able to do this if he had already been hit in the back and wrist?
As he said, "
We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my righshoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.
So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."
-
-
17 hours ago, David Josephs said:
So the jiggles in the film at the same time as the shots... that's not Zapruder being "startled" by the shots?
When JFK abruptly turns his head in a single frame 157,, with reactions from Rosemary Willis, Hickey and Connally
Looking at the famous Altgens... if there was no sound, why isn't everyone looking at JFK/Jackie?
If you claim JC was hit later In the film, 222 thru 236 would be a "startled" reaction
I could go on... and on... so please DVP - with all your righteous indignation - sell the Brooklyn bridge to some other forum's members...
K?
David, I don't know if you put the arrows on the above Altgens6 photo, but I disagree that the two SS agents on the right side of the limo are looking up towards the top of the TSBD. They look as they are looking straight to their right, IMO.
-
1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:
That's from the statement he submitted to the Secret Service on the 23rd.
In both his statement on the 22nd and statement on the 23rd he said he saw JFK hit with the back shot.
How can you construe that to mean that he didn't actually see the shot?
Cliff, it is taken verbatim from his hand written statement on 22nd.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm
How you understand what he wrote is up to you.
Are there any JFK protests similar to Umbrella Man's heckling?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
" Why would the killers record the murder and then make the recordings public?"
They haven't yet. But the Turks have the tapes, that's why the Saudis have come up with what the Donald calls "fake news"