Ray Mitcham

If you mean can I show that Altgens was in the street rather than on the grass then all I have to do is tell you to look at the curb on the right of the photo. (Unless you think that the curb suddenly shot left in the area below that which is shown in the photo.) Where do you think he was standing when the photo was taken? I look into the mirror everyday when I shave, not to admire myself. Maybe you are different.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see." John, you have shown yourself to be totally incompetent in discussing photographs. What with Mary Moorman wearing high heels, her raincoat suddenly becoming shorter, her shoes "not being painted in as well as they should be", your ability to discern a high heel in a black blob, the Vice President's car being "grossly distorted", road signs missing, and your misunderstanding of the field of view of a telephoto lens, I've never seen anybody being so wrong about anything. You continue to posts stupid comments, very similar the late non-lamented Ralph Cinque. (Could you be related in any way?) Despite your statement to Robin that you will not communicate with him again, I should imagine he will continue to point out your simple errors. As will I.

John, you don't seem to understand the way a telephoto lens works. It gives narrow field of view, so the Freeway sign is outside of the field of viewing Altgens6. Have a look at the Roberdeau chart and you will see where the sign is situated in regards to Altgens position.

Have you considered that Lovelady may have put on weight in the intervening years? (Rather like yours truly)

Don't think they are taken at the same time. Altgens 6 is later than 170, as JFK's hands are not up to his throat in 170, and Connolly has not yet turned his head. I think a closer frame would be about 252.

What are you trying to prove, Bill? If you think that it is Lovelady in both photos, as he said, why would he have had to obtain a replacement shirt ? And how and where would he obtain one where the stripes on the shirt and sleeve exactly match as do the position of the plaid on the overall shape of the shirt?

John, you are assuming that the black blob you can see in the Cancellare photo is a shoe with a high heel. Maybe you are seeing what you want to see.

John, are you saying that this black blob (arrowed in cropped Cancellare) is a high heeled shoe? How can you tell?

You are trying to judge the width of the stripes on the frame taken of Lovely in the DPD. Perhaps you will explain your method of measuring accurately. Do you agree that it is Lovelady in the DPD frame, or do you think it somebody else?

Link please, John.

Looks like McAdams changed the original address. Maybe it has something to do with payment by click.

If you can provide a photo of Lovelady taken on 22nd, at exactly the same angle as the groden photo, I shall try it.

Fair enough, but you didn't answer my question. What are you trying to prove?

. She is lifting her foot because she is leaning to her left to show something to the guy alongside her. She hasn't got high heels on. You saying that her coat shrank in a matter of minutes? What are you trying to prove?

Agreed about the width of the stripes . Maybe, but what are the chances tat the plaid would match exactly?

Sorry, John. but which photo of Moorman are you talking about?

I disagree with your perception of the thickness of the lines. How you can measure accurately the lines on the shirt in the photo Lovelady in the DPD office beats me. Do you not see how the join of the shirt the sleeve perfectly match in both of the photos? We've had this discussion about it not being the same shirt here, Where some posters said that there was a pocket in the Groden photo but not in the DPD photo, which was shown to be incorrect. Where and how do you think Lovelady obtained a shirt that matches the one that he wore on 22nd Nov 1963.

She was wearing flat, black, slip-on shoes. https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/show_picture.pl?l=english&rais=1&oiu=https%3A%2F%2Fjfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com%2F2016%2F05%2Fz-moorman-with-jean-hill.jpg%3Fw%3D403%26amp%3Bh%3D274&sp=c2d5a8154b9ff5ea4fccb592c1851802 Here she is in the Cancellare view of the south side of Elm Street post assassination, with the same flat shoes on. Which Cancellare photo shows her wearing high heels,John?

Yes, it is, Bill. Please show your proof that it isn't.

So I take it you don't believe the journalist.

This is a letter from a respected journalist, who met Bill Shelley....... "[The] question about Bill Shelley's height is difficult to answer. At the time I met Shelley in the early 1970's, he was perhaps 5-5 or 5-6. However, he told an employee he was once two inches taller. According to the employee, Shelley claimed he broke his back in a car accident sometime after the JFK assassination. Subsequent surgery supposedly left him two inches shorter. Shelley never mentioned the car accident in my presence, but the employee was a reliable source and Shelley's claim would have been plausible. Moreover, I recall Shelley was slightly misshaped as if he had indeed lost a couple of inches of height above the hips. For the sake of clarity, I met Shelley while he was working at the Scott Foresman school book warehouse in Northwest Dallas. This was the new home of the Texas School Book Depository. As for Shelley, after reading his Warren Commission testimony years later I realized I had learned little new information about him. Perhaps my biggest takeaway from the experience was a strong suspicion the Texas School Book Depository was a storefront for domestic intelligence. After the assassination, the storefront may have been moved to the new Scott Foresman warehouse in Northwest Dallas. Hope this information sheds a little light for you." Seems to answer the question of Bill Shelley being shorter than Lovelady.

Michael T. Griffith, Missing Autopsy Photos and the Large Head Wound (1st November, 2002) What follows is a brief summary of some of the historic new evidence contained in recently released autopsy witness interviews conducted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) from 1976-1979 and in interviews of key witnesses conducted over the last three years by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). What do the above mentioned documents reveal? As we'll see in a moment, they contain, among other things, evidence that a bullet struck Kennedy in the right temple, that there was a large wound in the back of the skull (which of course indicates the bullet came from the front and exited the rear of the head), that several important autopsy photos are missing, that there was NOT a straight path from the Oswald window to the back wound to the throat wound (because the back wound was lower than the throat wound and because Kennedy was not leaning off the seat when the back missile struck), that even Secret Service agents believed there had been a conspiracy, and that autopsy photos were altered (obviously in order to give a false impression of the direction of the gunfire that struck the president). Here are some of the important new disclosures: John Stringer reported that the throat wound was probed. This is key because it's further evidence the autopsy doctors were lying when they testified they were not aware of the throat wound until after the autopsy when Dr. Humes called Dallas and spoke with Dr. Perry. White House photographer Robert Knudsen told the HSCA that the probe went downward from the throat wound, which means that if the throat wound was the exit point for the back wound, then the back wound was lower than the throat wound. Knudsen assisted with the handling of the autopsy photos, and may have been present at the autopsy. The fact that the back wound was lower than the throat wound destroys the single-bullet theory. Dr. Pierre Finck, the only forensic pathologist at the autopsy, confirmed to the ARRB that there was a fragment trail that went from a point near the external occipital protuberance (EOP) upward to the area of the right orbit (behind the right eye). This is further evidence that the rear head entrance wound was not in the cowlick but rather four inches lower, very close to the EOP and just a couple inches above the hairline. Why is this so important? Because no bullet fired from the Oswald sniper's nest could have made that wound, unless Kennedy's head was tilted nearly 60 degrees forward, which the Zapruder film and the Muchmore film clearly show it was not. Saundra Kay Spencer, as established by chain of evidence documentation, processed the autopsy photos that Secret Service Agent James Fox brought from the autopsy. However, she did not process any black and white photos, only negatives and color positives, and she told the ARRB she did not process any of the autopsy photos now in evidence. She said the extant autopsy photos were not the ones she processed. This suggests the black and white autopsy photos were processed elsewhere, and that there were two sets of autopsy photos. Joe O'Donnell, a White House photographer who worked with Robert Knudsen, told the ARRB that Knudsen showed him autopsy photos that showed a grapefruit-sized hole in the back of the head. This is yet another witness who saw a sizeable wound in the rear of the skull. The evidence of a large wound in the back of Kennedy's head is important because the current autopsy photos show no such wound. In the autopsy photos the back of the head is virtually undamaged. Critics contend those photos have either been altered or the skull was cosmetically repaired before the pictures were taken, so as to conceal the large wound in the back of the head. A large wound in the back of the head, of course, would be characteristic of a shot from the front, not from behind. O'Donnell further told the ARRB that one of the autopsy photos Knudsen showed him showed what appeared to be an entry wound in the right temple. This is key because there were several reports out of Dallas of a small wound in one of the temples. O'Donnell's account strongly tends to confirm those reports. Also, a defect consistent with a wound of entry can be seen in the right temple area on the autopsy x-rays, according to three doctors who have examined them (one of whom is an expert in neuroanatomy and another of whom is a board-certified radiologist). Tom Robinson, the mortician, confirmed what he had already told the HSCA on the issue of a small wound in the temple, namely, that he saw a small hole in the area of the right temple, and that he filled it with wax. Although Robinson speculated the small hole was made by an exiting fragment, the hole is strong evidence of a shot from the front in light of the reports of a large wound of exit in the back of the head and in light of the other accounts of an entry-like wound in one of the temples. Indeed, White House press man Malcolm Kilduff told reporters at Parkland Hospital that afternoon that Dr. Burkley told him a bullet entered the right temple, and Kilduff pointed to his own right temple to illustrate the trajectory. This was all captured on film. One of the reporters who attended that press conference wrote in his notes "bullet entered right temple" (or "entered right temple"). O'Donnell said that Knudsen showed him other autopsy photos that showed the back of the head intact. This corresponds with the other evidence that there were two sets of autopsy photos, one genuine and the other altered. Knudsen's wife, Gloria Knudsen, and both his children, told ARRB interviewers that four autopsy photos were missing and that another photo had been "badly altered" (and "severely altered"). They also reported that he told them that four or five of the autopsy photos he was shown by the HSCA did not represent what he saw during the autopsy. Mrs. Knudsen reported that Knudsen told her that the background in the autopsy photos he was shown was wrong. This agrees with the reports of other witnesses at the autopsy that the photos in evidence show things in the background that were not in the autopsy room at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Knudsen's son Bob recalled that his father mentioned seeing probes inserted into three wounds. The WC said there were only two wounds of entrance, one in the back and the other low on the back of the head. Three entrance wounds means there must have been more than one gunman. Knudsen himself told the HSCA that he firmly recalled at least two probes inserted into wounds and that he believed he recalled one picture in which three probes were inserted into wounds. Again, three wounds of entrance equals conspiracy, period. In fact, in this instance two probes might mean conspiracy since it's unlikely the pathologists would have probed the head wound. Knudsen volunteered in his HSCA interview that there was "something shady" about the third piece of film that he handled. Incredibly, the HSCA interviewer did not ask him to explain his comment. Knudsen confirmed that Saundra Spencer processed color autopsy photographic material at the naval lab, and that he was personally aware that the black and white photos were done elsewhere. The special agent in charge of the Miami Secret Service office told the HSCA he believed some elements of the Secret Service might have been involved in a conspiracy in the assassination. Secret Service Special Agent Elmer Moore "badgered" Dr. Malcolm Perry into changing his story that the throat wound was an entrance wound. This is revealing. Researchers have always suspected that Dr. Perry was pressured into changing his initial (and very firm) diagnosis that the throat wound was an entrance wound. Robert Bouck, who was the chief of the Protective Research Division of the Secret Service in 1963, told the HSCA he believed Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. Special Agent Fox made black and white autopsy photo prints at the Secret Service lab. Dr. Robert Karnei, who viewed and assisted with the autopsy, told the ARRB he clearly remembered that a photo was taken showing a probe inserted into the body. No such photo is to be found in the autopsy photos in evidence. Another new witness discovered by the ARRB is John Van Hoesen. Van Hoesen was a mortician who was present when Robinson reconstructed the skull. He told the ARRB he saw an "orange-sized" hole in the back of the head. Incidentally, Robinson himself told the HSCA he very clearly recalled seeing a large wound in the back of the skull, and he even diagrammed the wound for the HSCA interviewer. Robinson, of course, not only saw this wound for a prolonged period of time, but he also HANDLED it. Is anyone going to seriously suggest that Robinson "confused" this wound for a wound that was "really" above the right ear?! (The current lone-gunman theory posits, and the extant autopsy photos show, a large wound above the right ear.) Yet another new witness is Earl McDonald, who was a medical photographer at Bethesda Naval Hospital. McDonald trained under Stringer, in fact. McDonald told the ARRB that at Bethesda he never saw anyone use a metal brace like the one seen holding the head in the autopsy photos. Other medical technicians at the autopsy have made similar observations, i.e., that the background in the autopsy photos doesn't show the autopsy room at Bethesda. X-ray technician Jerrol Custer, who was present at the autopsy and assisted with the autopsy x-rays, testified to the ARRB that he was certain he took x-rays of the C3/C4 region of the neck and that those x-rays showed numerous fragments. Custer added that he suspected the reason those x-rays disappeared was that they showed a large number of bullet fragments. Custer has a point. Why else would those x-rays have been suppressed? Custer told the ARRB that he saw a large bullet fragment fall from the back when the body was lifted for the taking of x-rays. Custer further told the ARRB that he wanted to put his personal marker on the x-rays during the autopsy, so as to be able to identify them, but that he was unable to mark all of them because a senior military officer ordered him to stop marking them.

Another set up by Harry Connick in New Orleans. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4238050/Innocent-man-jailed-24-years-framed.html