Ray Mitcham

Keyvan, in frame 312, JFK is looking slightly down and to his left. You say the bullet hit him in front of his right ear and his right temple. The shot was downwards into his head, how could it then exit the top of his head, without doing a compete turn? If, as you believe the shot came from the pergola, then it's direction would have been down into his brain not upwards out of the top of his head.

15 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Ray,

I have already explained to you where I believe the bullet entered.  Above his ear, between the temple and the top of his ear.

The JFK autopsy photographs have a modern-day provenance - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy  - I wonder if Bethesda or the Navy has a provenance of the autopsy photographs.

 

So the bullet entered his head above his ear, between the temple and the top of his ear, and exited through the top of his head.I'd love to know that could happen, and you talk about my theory needing a 90˚ turn to work. Not a "slightly upward angle."😁

Wikipedia?😏

You mean you can't point out where you think the extra shadows have been added?

6 minutes ago, John Butler said:

 

So you can't answer my question about the background being unaltered. If you say it has had shadows added, please show me where these additions are..

19 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

They can be both.  The shadows under the steps are natural and caused by the steps.  The Oswald figure's shadow is artificial and in the wrong direction.  It was probably made by using an airbrush to make the shadow.  The shadow under the Oswald figure's nose come from mating a face mask of LHO to the Oswald Figure.  The light in the LHO face mask generates a different direction from the light in the overall picture.

If you disagree with this then I can help you on other questions about this subject.

"1.) First off, the background shadows of the scene are natural and real.  The shadows of the steps ascending along side the house are real.  They move from picture left to picture right.  This means there is only one background used and that background has artificial shadows introduced into it"

Nothing about Oswald's figure in that statement. As I said show where they have introduced artificial shadows to the background.

Yes I disagree and look forward to you helping me by answering my question.

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

Asking questions like that leads me to believe you didn't really read what I have posted earlier or you didn't understand what was being said.  This is what I said and I am posting this again for your convenience:

John Butler   

• Advanced Member
•  
• 
• Members
•  
• 445 posts
• Gender:Male

• Report post
•  

Posted Monday at 10:13 AM (edited)

The shadows in the photo that you don't see or ignore:

1.) First off, the background shadows of the scene are natural and real.  The shadows of the steps ascending along side the house are real.  They move from picture left to picture right.  This means there is only one background used and that background has artificial shadows introduced into it.

2.) A cutout of an Oswald figure (not the real Oswald) has been introduced into the photo by photo editing techniques.  The editor made a cardinal artistic mistake.  He introduced a figure with a shadow moving in the opposite direction of the step shadows.  The figure's shadow moves from picture right to picture left.  The figure's shadow should move in the opposite direction and be in tune with the steps shadows.  This is common mistake with new artists.  So, this maybe an indication that the editor was new to this kind of work and was perhaps Roscoe White. (Unnatural)

3.) The third conflicting shadow is the shadow of under the Oswald figure's nose. (Unnatural) It moves straight down indicating the light source is from above.

 

At some point Ray you need to ask better questions or I won't respond.  I will use my time to achieve a greater understanding of life on Earth.

You are quite right, John. I don't understand what you are on about. Either the backgrounds are untouched i.e."natural and real" as you put it, or they are touched up with "artificial shadows." They can't be both.  Which is it?

27 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

John,

You mean this is not a photo:

 

What I showed you are photos from the autopsy.

Kevyan, the autopsy photos have no provenance.

If as you say the bullet exited JFK;s head at the top of the head, where do you think it entered?

9 hours ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

Ditto.

I assume what you meant to write was the original background had artificial shadows added to it. If so please show where you believe the artificial shadows are.

10 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Hi Michael,

I would like for you to draw an oblong circle in a piece of paper, quarter that circle and show me how an entry in the right temple area of that oblong circle will exit the right rear area of that oblong circle if the shot came from somewhere from the front right.  If you look at the Zapruder film, his head was slumped to the left.  Besides that, there is photographic and film evidence that shows two gunmen in the pergola shooting at the limo.  You can see the gunmen in the Mary Moreman Photo and in the nix film.  He got shot from the right and the bullet exited the top of his head.

Keyvan, please explain how a shot, or shots, from the pergola, travelling downwards towards the car, could exit the top of the President's head.

As far as the autopsy photo are concerned can you tell me how  the blacked out area in this photo came about?

4 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Ray, 

In order for the bullet to exit JFK in the read right hemisphere of his head, a bullet had to enter his head from the front, wherein the front do you suppose that the bullet entered?

1. There is no hole in the front windshield of the limo, there is a crack.  The cracked front windshield of the limo is stored in the national archives.  There is no hole.

2. There is a hole in the top of his skull, you can see brain matter come out of his skull in the Zapruder film.

3. If there was an exit wound to the rear of JFK, you would have seen brain matter come out of the Zapruder film.

4. There is no cavity in the back of JFK's head in the Mary Moreman photo.

1. IMO he was hit through the right temple, but not through the windshield

2. Agreed, but prove it is genuine.

3. Agreed but the area where you would have seen brain matter exiting is covered with a black block.

4. I believe you can see a cavity, yellow arrowed here.

You will need to enlarge to photo.

4 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Ray,

The Zapruder film nor the Mary Moreman photo or the X-rays or the autopsy pictures are not fake.  Tom Wilson did not find a hole in the back of JFK's head in the Mary Moreman photo.

"The Zapruder film nor the Mary Moreman photo or the X-rays or the autopsy pictures are not fake, in my opinion."

There fixed for you Keyvan.

p.s. I never said  the Moorman photo was a fake.

"Tom Wilson did not find a hole in the back of JFK's head in the Mary Moreman photo."

Can you not see the cavity in the back of JFK's head in her photo? I can. (Try enlarging the photo)

Post by Rick.

"John,

To me, it looks like passenger aircraft are in the reflection on the limo - if so, this clip is while they are still at Love Field.  I could seriously be mistaken as well.  Do you have confirmation of the location of this clip?"

Oops.

47 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Ray,

There is no brain matter or a large amount of blood in the backrest of the back seat.  The brain matter landed on Jackie.  The above photograph shows this.

There is no hole in the back of JFK's head shown in the Zapruder film,  Mary Moreman photo, the autopsy photo's of JFK's head, the X-rays of JFK's head.

The film and photographic evidence do not show any signs of an exit wound in the back of JFK's head.  Because 20-doctors say there is a hole in the back of his head does not make it so, especially when they recollect their memories 5, 10, 30, even 50 years later. 

Because there was no hole shown in the Zapruder film doesn't mean there wasn't one there,(alteration of the film- what is the pitch black insert over where the hole would be in the President's head.) Tom Wilson found a hole in the back of JFK's head as shown here.

As far as the autopsy photos and the X-rays are concerned, there are extreme doubts about whether they are kosher.

Considering we are talking about the possibilities of fakery in the Zap film and the autopsy and x ray photos, I would rather go with the original testimony of the doctors at Parkland, who had no reason to lie.

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

I see. You now have problems with reading.  Reread what I said and that will answer your question.

Perhaps you can explain how a thing can be "natural and real" and yet have "artificial shadows introduced  to it."

2 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

If there was a big hole in the back of JFK's head, there should be massive blood stains on the backrest of the back seat of JFK's limo.  Very little if any.  Hole in the back of JFK's head is fake news.

The blood marks show a pattern consistent with a shot from his right with him slumping to his left and blood pouring out the top of his head.  That is why Jackie was covered in brain matter and blood.

 

His head wouldn't have touched the back rest. he fell to his left, therefore the blood would pour out of the back of his head on to the back seat and Jackie. How do you work out there was no hole in the back of his head?

Interesting article, Douglas. Thanks for posting it. The story told sounds logical.

20 hours ago, John Butler said:

 

1.) First off, the background shadows of the scene are natural and real.  The shadows of the steps ascending along side the house are real.  They move from picture left to picture right.  This means there is only one background used and that background has artificial shadows introduced into it.

 

 

Either the background is "natural and real" or it has been altered by having articial shadows added. Which one is it?

Bullets don't make slits in material. They make holes. The shirts had cuts just below the buttons, not holes.

7 minutes ago, Tom Hume said:

Ray Mitcham wrote:

“Tom, unfortunately you, like David and Butler, are wrong, See the above photo, I posted in reply to Michael. The sun wasn't low in the sky. it was produced early afternoon at a similar time that the BYPs were supposedly taken.”

Yes, in the photo above we have two shadows that appear to be converging, and as Michael and David have pointed out, “appear” is the key word. If extended, the two shadows would appear to converge at the horizon, but If the terrain is flat and the sun is the light source, one could extend the shadows into the distance and they would remain (for all practical purposes) the same distance apart. 

This is easy to understand but harder to talk about - I think we all understand. 

And then Ray wrote this:

“The only shadow which I consider to be wrong in them is the shadow of Oswald, which appears to go different ways in each photo.  I consider all the other photos kosher.”

Well, David Josephs’ point was that in CE 133A the post shadow and the Oswald figure’s shadow, if extended a couple of feet, would meet, would fully converge, would become one at about the fence line. A seeming impossibility if the sun was the light source. 

However, as I pointed out earlier, there’s a wrinkle. The Lee Oswald figure is not standing upright. He is swaying to his right (our left) several degrees. 

Ray, in your photo above, if you tilted the right pole to the left about 6 degrees, one could extend the shadows and they would in fact meet, they would in reality converge, and they would do so rather quickly. 

That may be what’s happening here in CE 133A. I’ve removed the 12 degrees of keystone error and straightened the photo. 

If we could re-shoot this picture at the same date and time in the Oswald back yard, with the Oswald figure teetering several degrees to his right (our left), the post shadow and the Oswald figure shadow would “actually” converge, and do so rather quickly. 

I am, however, totally open to the notion that the Oswald figure’s shadow is bogus, and that Oswald’s head was pasted on someone else’s body. I believe that Oswald was instructed by his handlers to have his picture taken with his guns. I believe that Oswald knew he was being set up and he and a few associates created the Backyard Photos as a large and complicated but solvable puzzle.

Tom
 

Tom, you say "Ray, in your photo above, if you tilted the right pole to the left about 6 degrees, one could extend the shadows and they would in fact meet, they would in reality converge, and they would do so rather quickly. " Of course they would, but then the poles  wouldn't both be vertical and parallel, which is what we are talking about. The shadows of the poles in my yard, obviously  only appear to be converging, due to perspective. This is normal physics, which some of our posters do not appear to understand.

"If we could re-shoot this picture at the same date and time in the Oswald back yard, with the Oswald figure teetering several degrees to his right (our left), the post shadow and the Oswald figure shadow would “actually” converge, and do so rather quickly. " You don't have to reshoot the photo as the shadows already appear to be converging very quickly, if you compare Oswald's shadow with the correct shadow of the stairpost. In fact the shadows of both would seem to meet at some point just behind the picket fence, which is why I think the photos are bogus.

For once you are correct. The copy of Altgens 7 I have on my computer is cropped which I failed to realise. My mistake. 

However you are still wrong with your shadow arguments. The shadows do not go three ways in the backyard photos. I do agree however that there is discrepancy in the three different shadows in all three of them. That is not my argument and  that is why I have always considered the photos to be fake.

The only shadow which I consider to be wrong in them is the shadow of Oswald, which appears to go different ways in each photo.  I consider all the other photos kosher.

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

Can you count?  This is a question you can answer for yourself.  Remember, Officer J. W. Foster is standing with the railroad workers.  So, you will have to deduct one from your count of railroad workers.

Here is a copy of Altgens 7. I  would be interested to see how many railroad workers you see on the overpass.

I'd be mighty interested to know just what  my problem is, John. But before that maybe you would answer a question which you have avoided answering in another subject. You said the following

'Whoever scripted the editing of Bell made mistakes.  I am pointing out two in these posts.  The first was the difference in the number of railroad workers on the overpass in Bell vs. Altgens 7." I asked you how many railroad workers you can see in Altgens7. Perhaps you could answer my question.

11 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I just did some photographic testing on this post shadow vs Oswald shadow a couple weeks ago. Ray is correct and if need be i might do a video so i can move to different positions and you can all watch as shadows change. But I like thought experiments so try the following one which logically proves rays point.

1. picture yourself standing with the Sun directly at your back and the post directly in front of you. This means the Sun, you and the post are all on the same line of sight. So where is the post's shadow when you are in a direct line with it and the Sun? The answer is the shadow would be hidden directly behind the post. That is pretty easy to visualize and if you agree with me you can consider point 2.
 
2.Now if you understand that you, the Sun and the pole all have to share the same line of sight in order to hide the shadow behind the post, then consider that Oswald's position in the picture does not share that same line of sight. Oswald is not in direct line and so could never have his shadow hidden directly behind him as the post does. 
 
So if Marina was 10 feet away then Oswald is 7 degrees of to the right of the pole and we should see his shadow protruding by the same 7 degrees. But oswald is also leaning and that adds another 7 degrees. Then you add the perspective change of a camera at ten feet and approx 4 feet high and 14 degrees of shadow expands 2 1/2 times to about 35 degrees. (The post shadow is not subject to the same distortion because as the perspective changes vertical lines just shrink in size while angled lines change their angle towards the horizontal). 
 
Although I can account for what should be 14 degrees of original shadow distorted by perspective to 35 degrees, Oswald's shadow is closer to 50 degrees. Still can't explain that. It would take 20 degrees of shadow angle for the perspective to change it to 50(20 x 2.5 = 50) 

Thanks Chris, I'm glad to see somebody else understands suns shadows and perspective.

14 hours ago, Tom Hume said:

I understand your point, Ray, but the example of converging shadows you posted is extreme. The light source (the sun) is obviously near the horizon causing very long shadows that appear to converge into the distance as does the road.

In the Backyard Photos, the sun is very high and the shadows are pretty short. I agree with David, the Oswald shadow and the post shadow should be nearly parallel, and they are obviously not. 

Edit: I'll add a comment to avoid confusion: David drew in the dark post-shadow to show what it should have looked like (or sort-of looked like). The seemingly inconsistent post-shadow is at the tip of the white arrow with most of the shadow out of sight behind the post itself. 

All three Backyard Photos display the same seemingly contradictory Oswald/Post shadows. 

Tom
 

Tom, unfortunately you, like David and Butler, are wrong, See the above photo, I posted in reply to Michael. The sun wasn't low in the sky. it was produced early afternoon at a similar time that the BYPs were supposedly taken.

7 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

I see the misunderstanding here, I think. Shadow lines will actually diverge. But the view from an observer will see the shadows converged as one focuses further away..

If I were to a point a floodlight at two poles that were 4 feet apart and measured the distance between the shadows, that distance would yield a larger measurement as I move away from the poles along the shadow. If the flood light was 20 feet from the two poles this would be quite exaggerated. If the floodlight were 75’’, 1000’ or the distance to the sun, the effect would be less apreciable, but the measured distance between the shadows would still be greater then the 4’ distance between the poles, while the viewer standing at the poles would see them converging.

 

However, to a viewer, standing at the poles, the shadows cast by the light at 50 feet would appear to converge even though a tape measure, 200 feet away would prove them to be diverging.

Then we get into what I will guess would be the orthoganal relationships. If we put that light between the poles, obviously, the shadows would divegege absolutely, since the poles are 4 feet apart. If we move the light 1 foot away from the line of the poles (1/4 of the distance between the poles) we reach a point that would still yield no observable or actual convergence. If we move 2 feet from the pole line (half the distance between the poles) we yield no convergence but have a hypothetical observable convergence on a flat earth wth lights that can cast an infinitely long shadow. At 3 feet (3/4 of the distance between the poles), I’ll say that we observe apparent parallel shadows as far as we can see in a real world situation. At 4 feet and beyond (the same distance as is in between the poles) we perceive covergence from the vantage point of the poles, but, were we to measure the distance between the shadows, that distance would get smaller and smaller, but it would never get to 4 feet.

So since we are talking about the sun, 1AU away from Dallas, John is right technically, but he is just playing symmantic games. He is wrong in the application of his understanding of life on Earth.

 

 

Michael, as I asked John, perhaps you could produce a photo showing the sun's shadows diverging.  Here is a photo I produced for David,  three years ago to show how the shadows of the poles converge.

I will repeat, for John Butler, who seems to be have a problem with his comprehension, I believe the BYPs are fake. However, I will continue to criticise CT's, and LN's, who post rubbish.