Ray Mitcham

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.

Thanks for your postings, Ward. It is always interesting to read about the opinions of people in the depth of the country.

Do you agree with Josephs that (as per his photo the shadow of the post) diverge rather than converge? Should be easy to answer. I don't have to prove Josephs is wrong, physics proves it. Tell you what, show me your proof that shadows of vertical parallel items can diverge.

I'v not known somebody be so wrong since Doyle was barred from this forum. You agree with Josephs that Sun shadows diverge (as in the photo he posted.) You can't be more wrong. You seem to lack an understanding of physics. As far as my being a "Lone Gunner" what ever that is. LOL. You obviously haven't been on these for very long, otherwise you would never say that. Guess what wrong again. Incidentally you still haven't answered the questions I asked you in the "McIntyre Photo Ellis or Bellah? item.

Nowhere have I ever said the BYPs are authentic. You seem to agree with David Joseph that the shadow of the stair post is in the incorrect position. Am I correct in assuming that? David Joseph's photo is not legitimate.

It would be polite to get my name correct, but I suspect that it's not the only thing you got wrong.

John , please provide a photo which shows sun shadows diverging. Here's another one which shows shadows converging.

Not again, David. We've had this argument before. You are reading the shadows incorrectly. In the first photo, where you have added where you think the post shadow should be, you have it going entirely the wrong way. From the camera back to the sun, the sun shadows always "converge," not diverge, because they are parallel. Perspective makes them appear to converge. As in this photo. p.s.doesn't mean that I don't think there are lots of faults with the BYPs.

How many railroad workers can you see in Altgens7, John? According to the Bell film, the lead motorcycles were far ahead of the lead car, that's why they aren't visible in Altgens 7.

Deleted

Here is the photo, John.

Keyvan, do you really believe that photos and X-rays can't be altered or faked? Really?

Who was the cop standing by the lamppost near to the newmans on the North side of Elm Street? He must have had at least as good a view of the assassination as they did. Was he ever identified and interviewed? He is also seen in the Couch film appearing to be crossing the street.

Great.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6008131/Great-Pyramid-Giza-focus-electromagnetic-energy-hidden-chambers.html

If you think a banned poster has come up with a good idea or solution to a problem, there is nothing to stop you from posting it in your own words. It is when banned members own postings from other forums, are reposted here, that IMO the line is crossed. I have no objection to certain members good ideas, but I certainly have objections to certain members, who appear cause dissension wherever and whenever they post.

What is the reason for the rule being placed on the President's back? Couldn't be to hide the real entry of the back wound could it?

There is a reason why Doyle is unable to post his ramblings on here. He gratuitously insults anybody who disagrees with his daft ideas. He is unable to argue his points in a rational manner and, for a man who considers himself the world's greatest JFK expert, changes his mind constantly depending on how and when his "theories" are shown to be crazy. For example in reply to one of his acolytes, who said " To me, Prayerman is possibly a female with her arms in a purse strap holding position", Doyle replied "I have a good eye for such things. If you look really closely Prayerman has a side part to his hair and a receding hairline making it very unlikely it was a woman." Now he insists that Prayerman is a woman, Sarah Stanton. 😀 But with his "good eyes for such things"(LOL), in a few months time, he will probably say he can identify Prayerman as Jackie Kennedy. I totally agree that the image is too fuzzy to make a credible ID, as you state, but then, you post the views of a person who not only can ID the blob, but can see the "buttons" on her dress. If he wants to post his ramblings on another site, that's his prerogative, but we don't want his crazy ideas contaminating this forum.

By associating yourself with Doyle, so closely, Jim, you are making yourself look like you agree with him, which makes you look as silly as he. I agree with Andrej. You shouldn't post his (or Gilbride's😊) comments on here.

Ron , Father Huber who gave the President the last rites, said that JFk's eyes were closed. Which makes me wonder whether eyes can reopen after death for some reason. interesting view on this.

Maybe he was just protecting his future. "Dr. Perry made an incision across the bullet wound, just large enough to accommodate a breathing tube. During a phone conversation in 1966 with author David Lifton, Perry said the incision was "two to three centimeters" wide. Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively . After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision" Dr. Perry described the bullet wound in the throat as "inviolate"]. How do you account for the wound changes David?

You only discount evidence of people who were actually at the autopsy because they make a simple mistake over the time and add "Jnr" to the end of the President's name, if you are DVP. He consider these "blatant errors" because they disagree with his arguments.

Before I answer, maybe you would like to answer the question I posed above. i.e "do you still think that the photo I posted was a faked?"