Ray Mitcham

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.

Bennett admitted in his statement that he wasn't looking at the President when he heard the first "fire cracker" like shot. “At this point, I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a fire cracker. Immediately on hearing the supposed fire cracker, looked at the boss's car. At the exact time I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder.a second shot followed almost immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head” This could be construed as him seeing the second shot hitting JFK in the back, or that he saw the result of the first shot on JFK's shoulder, and then the second shot hitting the President in the head.

Why would a secret service man want to know if there was another way out fo the building? Strange.

Fred, it matters little if the answers in your book are to the wrong questions.

From the above source. "There are no burns or hemorrhages in the oral cavity."

The argument isn't about that, Michael. It's about whether the shadows cast by the sun, appear to converge both towards and away from the sun. The statement made was "Shadows converge towards the source of light... the shadows in the BYP converge in the opposite direction..." which is what they should appear to do.

Two photos...same poles first facing away from the sun and second facing towards the sun. In each the shadows appear to converge. Should stop the arguing but I doubt it. ]

Thanks, Chris. What does the old proverb say "There are none so blind as those who don't want to se". Trying to convince Butler is like trying to knit spaghetti.

"Parallel lines do not converge or diverge." I have never said they do. They appear to converge due to perspective, what do you not understand about that? Do you agree that parallel shadows appear to converge whether they are facing towards the sun or away from, John?

You are totally wrong, David. Sigh as much as you want. It won't change physics. Tell me whether you think the shadows shown in the color photo above are converging or diverging, David. Or are the shadows converging or diverging in this photo? "The fence shadows and the boy's shadow converge TOWARDS the sun." Agreed, but as I said above the shadows, because rather are parallel, will appear to converge towards the sun or away from the sun, due to perspective. Incidentally this is what you eventually replied after we had the same the same argument in 2015, on the Deep Politics Forum. "Ray - thank you for the example and the patience. It does indeed appear as if shadows can be made to look like they converge to a vanishing point based on perspective." https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?15226-Impossible-to-refute-evidence-the-BYPs-are-composites-this-is-a-done-deal/page4#.W5Pu-i2ZOK5

Quote by David. "they converge in the wrong direction Ray... Shadows converge towards the source of light... the shadows in the BYP converge in the opposite direction..." "They also converge away from the source of light (in this case the sun) sun. Because the shadows are parallel, whether looking towards the source of light or away from it they will appear to converge because of perspective. If you don't believe this then please show me a photo where this doesn't happen. This photo shows how the stair post shadow looks as it does. It depends on the position of the camera If the camera had been slightly to the right of where it was, then the shadow of the left stick would have disappeared directly behind the stick..

Agreed Michael. I've always said I believe the BYP are faked, but also try to point out posts which do not add up.

Michael, no matter how many photos you show him, he still won't admit the shadows appear to converge both away from the sun and towards it, due to perspective. They stay parallel but appear to converge.

Thanks, David.

Was Oswald 's signature not found in an atomic energy site visitor's book? I remember reading about it but can't remember where and when.

Not available here, Micah. " This page is not available in your area. Our servers have detected that you are accessing this site from a country that is a member of the European Union. This content is not available in your region."

You have nothing to hide have you, David? Not ashamed to say? If you do make money from it, you shouldn't advertise your site on here.

François, Please supply your "overwhelming undeniable evidence" that Oswald assassinated JFK.

What are we supposed to be seeing? It's no good arrowing something without saying what you think you can see.

I would be interested if you had "Lots of sensible things to say " to me. Unfortunately you don't. Your quoted material is, as you proven since your arrival on the forum, rubbish. I won't be answering any of your comments to me in future. But I won't put you on ignore as I enjoy shooting you down regularly.

Maybe you should come back down onto Earth.

I'm with you Michael. It's freezing down here.

Something which I find unanswerable. The De Mohrenschildt back Yard photo shows much more detail and is crisper in focus. How can this be when the photos were all taken with the same camera?

The photo she tore up was a photo of Oswald hunting in Russia where he was photographed holding a shotgun above his head.

Does anybody believe anything the plagiarist Posner writes?