Ray Mitcham

Just before the thread is closed was it Brian Doyle, Albert Doyle or Popeye Doyle who interviewed Sarah Stanton's grand-daughter?

44 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

Go back and read what I said.  All the trees are in front of the sun.  Some are not directly in front of the sun to the right and left based on where they are seen on the horizon line.  They cast their shadows to the right and left.  Perfectly normal.  They all go in the direction they should based on their relationship to the sun.  That is the key point you are missing.

None go in opposite or conflicting directions. 

Whose Albert Doyle?  Don't know the fellow.  I assuming your casting some kind of aspersion.  I'll go channel Jack and see what he has to say about you. 

Your statement  "I have not read anything sensible here that can explain 3 conflicting shadow directions in the same photo, hence in the same time frame.  The sun does not cast shadows in different directions. "

Seems you now agree that they do.

Do you  still think that the first photo I showed you is a camera trick? 

"Whose [sic] Albert Doyle?  Don't know the fellow.  I assuming your casting some kind of aspersion." You obviously haven't been on this forum for long otherwise you would.

"I'll go channel Jack and see what he has to say about you. "

As I said, stop while your losing, John.

"The shadows in your photo depend on the relationship of the trees to the sun.  If a tree is off and not directly in front of the sun then the shadow appears to be angled off the sun.  "

How can the tree not be directly in front of the sun if we can see it's shadow? 

Seems like you are turning into Albert Doyle, John..

Has this photo been manipulated as well? Get your uoiji board out and ask Jack White.

How about this one?

All the shadows are parallel but seem to diverge because of the perspective of the camera.

Try another, John. How many before you admit that shadows from the sun can appear to diverge and converge? It depends on the point of view of the camera. All the tree trunk shadows shown are parallel. From the position of the camera they appear to diverge away from the sun, or, if you prefer, converge towards the sun..

44 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

I have been channeling Jack White, uh, you know, uh, from the beyond.  He say's that's just a camera trick.

You better get back to him and tell him if he keeps telling porkies, he might transferred to a lower place.

Francois, what is you take on the conversation between Valerie Giscard D'Estaing and Gerald  Ford?

"

On the evening of May 19, 1976, President Valery Giscard d’Estaing of France visited President Gerald Ford in Washington. Giscard, a calculating centrist, had come for a state visit. Ford, the former Michigan congressman, had succeeded the disgraced Richard Nixon. Both men were new to their high offices.

In the limousine ride to the state banquet at George Washington’s home in Mount Vernon, Giscard asked Ford about a sensitive issue: the assassination of President John F. Kennedy 13 years before.

‘Here is an indiscrete question, Giscard said, “You were with the Warren Commission. What was your take?’

Ford, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives in 1963, served on the Warren Commission, which investigated Kennedy;s assassination and concluded there was no conspiracy.

Former French president Valery Giscard D’Estaing

Publicly, Ford defended the lone gunman finding. Privately, he offered a different opinion, according to Giscard.

‘It is not satisfactory,” Ford replied according to Giscard. “We first concluded that it was not an isolated crime, it was something organized. We were sure that it was organized. But we were unable to find out by who it was organized’

Giscard told the same story to Le Parisienmagazine in 2013.

He said Ford told him, “We came to the conclusion that this assassination had been prepared. There was a conspiracy. But we were not able to identify which organization had sponsored it. ”

Strange that nobody has mentioned "Mash", an absolutely brilliant humorous take on the Korean conflict, with contrasting humour and tragedy.

2 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Hello everybody,
(First of all, I'd like to thank the moderators for agreeing to let me subscribe to this forum again. I intend to act more as a lurker/reader than anything else, and I shall insure that anytime I post a comment I'll be polite, cordial, and respectful.)

Well, I have spent hours reading this thread (and others) and I can't help being surprised. The point is, I've spent almost all my life studying the Kennedy assassination and getting to know the "research community" quite well, so I guess I should be prepared by now. Still, I must admit that it still comes as a surprised to learn that there still are some people who deny the obvious and keep expressing doubts about the rightly-called-by-Dale-Myers single bullet fact.
Before I go on, I must digress a little bit.

People who know me may remember that for years I have been advocating the study of critical-thinking skills. Indeed, that's the key.
Take James DiEugenio, for example. He is considered as an expert on the Kennedy assassination, since he has studied the case extensively. But, to put it simply, I have read all the books that he has read about the Kennedy assassination (meaning I know as much as he knows), but he hasn't read the slightest book on critical thinking, or so it seems (meaning that I know a lot more than him in that area, and that's crucial).
As I have always said, what has always struck me in all this Kennedy-assassination debate, is the lack of understanding of critical-thinking rules and laws by most, if not all, conspiracy theorists.
And that's sad.
May I suggest to Jim DiEugenio to read these books :
- Robert Baker et Joe Nickell, Missing pieces, Prometheus Books, 1992
- Michael Barkun, A culture of conspiracy, University of California Press; 2013
- Antony Flew, How to think straight, Prometheus Books, 1998
- Martin Gardner, Science : good, bad and bogus, Prometheus Books, 1989
- William D. Gray, Thinking critically about new-age ideas, Wadsworth Publishing. Company, 1991
- Peter Knight, Conspiracy Culture : From the Kennedy Assassination to the X-Files, Routledge, 2000
- Elizabeth Loftus, Eyewitness testimony, Harvard University Press, 1996
- Kathryn S. Olmsted, Real enemies, Oxford University Press, 2009
- Hy Ruchlis, Clear thinking, Prometheus Books, 1990
- Hy Ruchlis, How do you know it's true ?, Prometheus Books, 1991
It's a short list, but it will be helpful to begin with.
That's my contention here : conspiracy theorists do not apply logic, nor common sense. Otherwise, they would simply end up admitting that the only truth is the official version.
I've been studying the paranormal world for most of my life (from astrology to so-called haunted houses to so-called sorcerers and wizards or parapsychology and all the rest). I have learned that it's all bull. Nothing else. Bad reporting from journalists (mostly in the case of so-called haunted houses : when you go there yourself and investigate you realize than nothing ever happened there, nor anywhere else for that matter), lies from attention-seekers, honest mistakes, self-delusion, etc. all explain the so-called phenomena.
All of that helped me realize that there is a huge difference between what you read in the newspapers or books and what is true. So many "experts" are nothing but ignorant. They lead you astray.
And I have always said that this is exactly what you witness in the Kennedy-assassination "research" world.
How many times on this forum have I read posts full of fallacies ? How many times have I thought : "That member shows bias, that member is using a fallacious argument, that member is so illogical, …" ? As they say on a web site devoted to critical thinking, there are several ways in which arguments can go awry.
For example, who in this forum has ever read "The thinker's guide to fallacies" ?
It can be downloaded for free on line :
file:///C:/Users/ZEC/Documents/---%20livres/3.%20complots%20&%20compagnie/Fallacies.pdf
It should be mandatory reading. I mean, every member should be asked to read such a book before beginning to post comments here. The overall quality of the debates would be greatly enhanced and improved.
Fallacies are plentiful here. They should be spotted and members should try all they can to erase them.
That's what I think.

Anyway, let's get back to the subject at hand, namely this thread about the single bullet.
I believe in the single bullet. To me, it's not a theory, it's a fact. It's an obvious fact. It has been demonstrated. It has been proven. Better yet : I could almost say that it has been replicated !
In 2013, I organized the only national conference on the 50^th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination to take place in France. Experts and journalists were there as speakers. French journalist Philip Labro was there. He is well-known in France. As a young journalist making a documentary in New York, he was sent to Dallas on November 22^nd, 1963 and he went to the Dallas Police Department, even talking to Jack Ruby. He recounted all of that in a book in 2013. Other French Kennedy-assassination experts were there, among whom Alain Boquet, who gave a brilliant scientific demonstration about the validity of the single bullet (http://50ansjfk.blogspot.com/p/alain-boquet.html).
There is no question that the single-bullet theory (if you want to call it a "theory") is valid and is true.
And yet, despite the overwhelming evidence, there are still a few people on this forum who try to deny the facts.
Why ?
It is because even if they realize that it is true, they don't dare admit it, since, as they say, "people are rarely grateful for a demonstration of their gullibility" ?
I wonder. It's hard for people to admit that they had been wrong. It shouldn't be. I, for one, would have no difficulty. But to most people, it is hard.
People who have been claiming that there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination now feel compelled to maintain that stance. That's because of their pride.
Especially since they have written on a public forum, for all to see, which makes it harder for them to now admit that they had been wrong.
That's human, I guess.
That's why they'd rather pounce on David Von Pein. It helps them avoid the real issue.

But the fact remains. The bottom line is, the single bullet – Lee Oswald's second shot -- is indeed what happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22^nd, 1963.
I won't spend my time explaining and demonstrating here, mainly for four reasons :
- Mel Ayton, Vincent Bugliosi, Gerald Posner, John McAdams, Jim Moore, Dale Myers, Larry Sturdivan, among many others, have already done a very good job giving evidence on this matter ;
- I have myself written a book which already explains and demonstrates the single bullet. I don't need to repeat or copy/paste all of it here ;
- David Von Pein is already here, making a wonderful job. He's the best and I could never explain as well as he does (if only because I am French and don't master the English language anywhere as well as he).
- There are none so deaf as those who will not listen. Indeed I know one thing : I could spend hours, days, weeks, months, years, even decades here, giving all the evidence in the world to prove the validity of the single bullet, backed by all the best scientists in the world, it would be to no avail in front of conspiracy believers, who want to believe and could not care less about the facts.
In this particular thread, I defer to David Von Pein, 100%.

One thing that I loved here : sentences such as "I have to admit, this is fun, being able to sit it out while watching Davey get pummeled from pillar to post" + "Davey is being wasted on about three different issues" + "Let me add one more point about DVP being skewered on this issue of the Single Bullet Fantasy." (James DiEugenio) ; "This is the fatal flaw in the SBT." (James Gordon) ; "But the Lone Nutters and the Main Stream Media still have their heads in the sand."(Ron Bulman).
Very typical of what most people do when they argue. They try to pretend that the other party is wrong, but in essence they are just trying to convince themselves, and in actuality are only deluding themselves.
I find it entertaining. But they should know that repeating something untrue a hundred times will never make it true. Sorry…

Another point. David Von Pein was right in underlining a very good point : (I quote) : "JFK conspiracy theorists have NEVER (not once) offered up any kind of a valid and reasonable and sensible and believable alternative to the Warren Commission's Single-Bullet Theory".
That's true. And that should make them think. I mean, after 55 years, they still spit on the official version all the while being able to offer no alternative at all !!!!! And they don't even agree with each other.
And what did James DiEugenio say ? I quote : "Our side should never fall for this.  Never."
Can you believe it ? How convenient ! How easy ! James DiEugenio denies the facts and wants us to reject the single bullet version of events but is unable to tell us what else could have happened ? In other words, according to James DiEugenio, we have the choice between the single bullet theory on the one hand, and nothing on the other hand… (Well, maybe Kennedy wasn't assassinated that day, after all…)
And to top it all, he goes on to write : (I quote) : "As I have said many times, no one will ever know for certain the precise circumstances of Kennedy's murder."
What ?
Speak for yourself, Mister DiEugenio. Because, we know what happened. We do !
Well, to cut a long story short, no offense, but my point is : this thread will go nowhere, because science has already resolved the issue. The single bullet is a valid point. Those who try to deny it are only splitting hairs (which, by the way, can be done by anybody about any topic : it looks as if you are giving arguments but in reality you are not). There will always be those who don't want to believe.
One could claim that there was a conspiracy, namely that Lee Oswald did fire that shot but he was paid by the CIA, or it was in fact Bonnie Ray Williams who fired that shot (and then he ran back one floor down), or any such theory that anybody wants to put forth but the fact remains that that shot existed, it was a single bullet with the path that is known in the official version of events. I say that those who continue to try to deny the single-bullet theory are wasting their time.
 

To the unbiased mind, the SBt is the least plausible solution To those who are somewhat knowledgable about physics, ballistics and anatomy, the SBT is nothing short of a miracle. And if those same people who are physics savvy, also happen to know a few facts about the incident and its aftermath, the SBT is totally impossible.

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

DVP (emphasis added):

Therefore, it would seem as if the chalk mark was also based (at least in part) on the hole in JFK's jacket, which IMO is just totally ridiculous, since we know that the hole in the coat is located well BELOW the hole in JFK's skin (due to the fact that Kennedy's coat was bunched up higher than normal when the shooting occurred).

Which means that if the jacket on the JFK stand-in in the photo above were to be "bunched up" a little bit (and we can see it isn't bunched up at all in that photograph), it would make the chalk mark rise a little higher on the back of the stand-in, which would mean it would almost perfectly line up with where Arlen Specter is holding the metal rod in that picture.

That "bunching up" of the jacket could very well be the answer as to why the chalk mark is located below the level of Specter's pointer. If we bunch up the jacket a little bit (like JFK's coat was bunched, per the Croft photo), it's a perfect alignment. </q>

So "higher than normal" = "a little higher" = "a little bit."

A little fraud.

Precisely, Cliff. The trouble is DVP doesn't seem to understand the corner he painted  himself into.

9 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

http://gen.lib.rus.ec/

AKA libgen.io

Various JFK books have been posted to the russian Library Genesis website.

That's been blocked as well, Micah.

Apparently according to an email from Bernard, it contravened copyright rules. 

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

 

 

1.  

2. The time between when the presidential limousine passed the TSBD and Weigman/ Darnell/ Couch has to be about 2 minutes more or less.  I tried to explain this to Ray Mitcham earlier.  I don’t know how well I put out the idea.

3.  

If you could post exactly which three photos you are talking about, I might be able to discuss them with you.

If you think anybody in Altgens 6 is wearing a mask, I'm afraid to say  you might be losing it.

And me now, Steve. It looks like somebody objected.

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

And you, Ray, being a CTer, require absolute perfect to-the-millimeter perfection in a SBT re-creation before you'll even begin to consider it valid. But, realistically, it's just not reasonable to expect an event like this to be able to be re-created right down to the last inch. IMO, however, CE903 comes very close to SBT perfection (even though I realize that the 17.72-degree angle isn't exactly right, since it's an angle for the equivalent of Z217.5 and not what I believe is the true SBT Z-Film frame of Z224).

So, if you want to say I "want it both ways", OK. But the Z217.5 angle seen in CE903 is so incredibly close to being "perfect", why would I quibble with it and raise hell with Mr. Specter & Company (especially since I fully realize that complete and total "perfection" is not a reasonable expectation)?

How can it be "perfect' when the coat and shirt aren't bunched up, if the pointer is at the hole in the jacket?

If the coat and shirt weren't bunched up, then according to your arguments, the rod couldn't line up they way you say it does. You want it both ways David. Your "perfect alignment" is only in your mind.

Quote from DVP.

"

MR. SHANEYFELT -- "The rod passed through a position on the back of the stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the entrance wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button of the coat or button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was inserted in the entrance hole on the back of Governor Connally's coat which was being worn by the stand-in for Governor Connally."

Did Shaneyfelt ensure that the coat and the shirt were bunched up, as DVP insists happened,  ?

Since when did a bullet travelling at high speed, make a slit in in the fabric of a shirt rather than a hole. Sorry, David, but it just din't happen. It ain't no bullet hole in the shirt, it is a cut.

16 hours ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

Thanks for responding.  Let me correct a mistake.  The frame in question is not Weigman but, Darnell.  I generally screw those two up when not thinking.  There are two different shadow angles in Darnell.  One for the corner of the landing at the TSBD doorway.  And another shadow angle for people on the street.  There is a significant difference in these angles.

When light from a light source hits an object, the object casts a shadow directly away from the light source.  The angle of that shadow is the angle of the light source to the object.  If I have that wrong then I will stand corrected.

At 12:30 on Nov. 22, 1963, the sun was at a certain point in the sky.  Any object on earth at that time would cast a shadow directly off the sun.  The angle of that shadow would be a reflection of the angle of the sun to the object at 12:30.  Angles of shadows moving at two different directions at the same time is unnatural and physically impossible.

Therefore the Darnell frame is a composite of two photos with different shadow angles taken at different times.  That really screws up Prayer Man, doesn't?  There is another problem with time in most people's reasoning involving Darnell, Weigman, and Couch.  When were there films taken is the problem?  How long after the assassination?

The presidential motorcade broke up into more than 3 segments at the Houston and Elm intersection.  Each segment traveled down Elm Street at a different time.  First off, the first segment was of the first two motorcade vehicles.  These traveled ahead of the rest of the motorcade and were not involved in the motorcade events.  The second group consisted of those cars and motorbikes directly around the president's vehicle.  We can see these in Zapruder, Bell, Altgens, and some other films. 

The 3rd group consisted of the Mayor's Car and the National Press Pool Car.  I don't have any visuals on them traveling down Elm Street to the underpass.  They were stopped at the intersection at then released by the Dallas Police.  How long they were stopped and how long it took then to clear Elm Street and go under the Triple Underpass is not known.

The 4th group begins with the Camera Car #1 and the vehicles following it.  They were held up while the Mayor's Car left Dealey Plaza.  After that, they were released to travel down Elm.  The Couch film has a good frame showing these vehicles with Elm Street empty of cars in front of them.   Again, the question is how long were they stopped and how long did it take them to travel down Elm Street and go under the Triple Underpass.

My best guess is 2 minutes or more.  The time involved in the assassination and the filming of Darnell and Couch would not really be that significant for shadows.  You should not find a large discrepancy in shadows in Darnell.  But, they are there and easily seen. 

So, the two different shadows in the Darnell frame showing Prayer Man is a real problem for theorists.  There is such a degree of difference in the shadows mentioned that there is really no need to figure angles.  Unless some one has to see the angle difference in numbers rather than just looking at it.

 

 

 

As the sun moves 15 ˚ every hour, (360/24), that means that  in 2 minutes it will have moved only 0.5˚ (15˚/30) in two minutes. Hardly a significant change in the shadow.

On 7/1/2018 at 3:30 AM, John Butler said:

"PM has something in his hands.  I use to think it was a coke.  I now think it is a camera.  The frame above informs the notion.  There seems to be some sort of glow in his hands or more correctly between his hands.  He appears to be holding a 2-handed camera holder used with cameras in those days to steady the camera.  His hands are always positioned for such a device in Weigman, Darnell, and John Martin."

Rich,

This drew no response from anyone.  Is there anyone out there who can explain the glow in PM's hands?  To me, it is similar to the flash seen in PM's hands in the John Martin film.

 

Looks more like to top of a coke can.

Reposted below

12 hours ago, John Butler said:

I have reread through this thread and the comment I made on two different shadow angles in Weigman drew no response or very little.  The comment must have been made in another thread.  It is not in this one.  So, I will make it again.

There are two shadow angles in Weigman.  One is going at a certain angle in the TSBD doorway.  I believe you folks have calculated that at about 18 degrees with some variation.  What is the shadow angle of the people on the street?  It appears to be significantly different than the doorway.

John in order to work out the angle of the people in the street, we would've to have  fixed point with from  which to calculate. At that time, 12.30 p.m. the angle of the sun's azimuth was 185.22 or 4.78˚ degrees west of South.

Yes, Thanks, Douglas. Great site for people who haven't been able to access these books.

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

But the long and short of it is....

It doesn't really matter what the awful Rydberg drawings depict, and it doesn't really matter whether Arlen Specter said "neck" 3000 times in his lifetime, because the Rydberg drawings are trumped (and always will be) by the "live action" scene demonstrated in CE903 that you hate so much, which PROVES that Specter & Co. did NOT raise the back wound into JFK's "neck".

And I don't see how anyone can say the CE903 photo is rigged or "phony" in some fashion. It shows the angle that leads back to the 6th floor (17d 43m 30s), and it shows the bullet exiting exactly where everyone agrees a bullet wound was located on JFK's body (the tie knot/trach wound area), and it shows the rod being placed into the known bullet hole in JBC's jacket.

Pat, don't those THREE things lining up perfectly in an "SBT" fashion (forgetting for the moment the precise "back wound" location seen in CE903) strike you as being rather amazing and incredible IF, as you assert, the Single-Bullet Theory is a pure fairy tale INVENTION of the Warren Commission?

How did Specter manage that amazing SBT-like trickery and how did he manage to manipulate his METAL ROD (which has no "zig-zag" attachment on it that I can see) so that it could be placed in a 17.72-degree downward angle and have it go straight from Kennedy's throat wound directly into Connally's bullet hole in his jacket?

You must admit that those THREE "SBT"-like things I just talked about are impressively duplicated in CE903....wouldn't you agree, Pat?

So you believe that in 903, the pointer that Specter is holding is placed at the neck, David? 

Seems to me the David gave you all the necessary information. What else do you want, Fred?