Ray Mitcham

Apologies, Sandy. I thought it was from that video. I've had it so long in my records that I can't remember which video it is from. Does it matter as it is obviously from the same place at the same time? Yes, it does matter, Ray. Why? Because not all of us accept that these different plaid-shirt wearing guys are Lovelady. And in fact, one of them is clearly, without a doubt, not Lovelady. The more evidence there is, the more likely it is that important clues can be discovered. Do you dispute that the photo I posted was taken at the same time as the video shown above? If not, why not? Which one do you think is not Lovelady?

A still from the above video, Sandy. Ray, Will you tell which post number has the video you're referring to? I don't see this particular frame in the video that I saw posted above. Apologies, Sandy. I thought it was from that video. I've had it so long in my records that I can't remember which video it is from. Does it matter as it is obviously from the same place at the same time? Yes, it does matter, Ray. Why?

A still from the above video, Sandy. Ray, Will you tell which post number has the video you're referring to? I don't see this particular frame in the video that I saw posted above. Apologies, Sandy. I thought it was from that video. I've had it so long in my records that I can't remember which video it is from. Does it matter as it is obviously from the same place at the same time?

Oswald had an apple in his lunch pack. In the Doorway photo, could the bright "cup"/camera" be him eating his apple after his sandwich?

A still from the above video, Sandy.

The cut of the material patterns on the shirts in both photos match perfectly.

Where would Lovelady get a shirt which exactly matches the shirt worn by "plaid man" in Altgens 6, walking down the street and sitting in the DPD office, if wasn't him?

A.J. Millican 2650 Valley View Lane Dallas 34, Texas Chapel 7-4953 Works for Sam P. Wallace and Claude Beard Plumbing Company Fabricating pipe for the Republic Bank Building at the end of the Katy Railroad yards and the west end of Pacific Street "I was standing on the North side of Elm Street, about half way between Houston and the Underpass. About five or ten minutes before the President came by I observed a truck from Honest Joe's Pawn Shop, and parked by the Book Depository Store. Then drove off about five or ten minutes before the Presiden't car came by. Just after the President's car passed, I heard three shots come from up toward Houston and Elm right by the Book Depository Building, and then immediately I heard two more shots from the Arcade between the Book Store and the Underpass, and then three more shots came from the same direction only sounded further back. It sounded approximately like a 45 automatic, or a high powered rifle. Then everybody started running up the hill. A man standing on the South side of Elm Street, was either hit in the foot, or the ankle and fell down. And then I went back to work." J.C.Price. "There was a volley of shots, and then much later, maybe as much as five minutes [sic! seconds] later, another one. I saw one man run towards the passenger cars on the railroad siding after the volley of shots. This man had a white dress shirt, no tie and kahki [sic] colored trousers. His hair appeared to be long and dark and his agility running could be about 35 yrs [sic] of age. He had something in his hand. I couldn't be sure but it may have been a head piece."

It appears to me that the guy wearing the plaid shirt in Altgens 6 is the the same guy in a plaid shirt, shown walking down the street with the other guy, and the same guy pictured in the DPD, wearing a plaid shirt, when Oswald was being taken in. If it is Oswald in Algens 6, then how come he was walking down the street and sitting in The DPD whilst he was being taken it to the same place. Incidentally, are there any photos of anybody wearing a red and white striped shirt outside the TSBD?

With a head shaped like that "she"must be a descendant of Frankenstein. And who is the woman in the white circle.?

Paul. IDK. But let me ask you. If it were true, would you expect to find "supporting evidence" for Webster's claim? You do know that Marina allegedly told a friend of hers that her American husband had worked for an American exhibition in Moscow in 1959, don't you? But also that he worked in some kind of factory in Minsk? And that Webster told Dick Russell in 1997 that he had met Marina in Russia in 1959, and that she spoke Russian pretty well at that time? I'm starting to wonder, though, whether Marina didn't meet Webster, and that LHO lied to her when they first met and said he had worked at an American exhibition in Moscow, thereby reinforcing the CIA's "marked card" operation which intentionally mixed and merged Webster's identity with Oswald's. And that Marina believed him. Regardless, so that you can do your own "research" in the future on questions like this, here are a few hints: Google Search: webster moscow exhibition marina . That will take you to Simpich's State Secret Chapter 1, and all the other websites that talk about this very issue. Once on Simpich's Chapter 1, press F and ctrl at the same time and type the word "exhibition" in the little drop-down search box. (Doing so will highlight the word "exhibition" in the text for you, making that subject or issue very easy to find in the longish text.) There. See how easy it is? Just think! You, too, can be a "researcher," Paul! -- Tommy ' she spoke Russian pretty well at that time." I reckon that's a pretty good assumption, Tommy. I was wondering if you'd catch that, Ray. You passed that test with flying colors! Thanks for not sending me a discrete PM informing me of your incredible powers of observation. You've really "made your bones" here on the EF. Now we're actually thinking about inviting you to Camp Perry for the indoctrination program. -- Tommy PS I obviously meant to say "Mandarin Chinese." Sorry, Tommy. I thought you had a sense of humor.

Thanks for link, David. Interesting to read all the subsequent replies to Mr Zboril's criticism.

There goes the neighbourhood, Vince.

Paul. IDK. But let me ask you. If it were true, would you expect to find "supporting evidence" for Webster's claim? You do know that Marina allegedly told a friend of hers that her American husband had worked for an American exhibition in Moscow in 1959, don't you? But also that he worked in some kind of factory in Minsk? And that Webster told Dick Russell in 1997 that he had met Marina in Russia in 1959, and that she spoke Russian pretty well at that time? I'm starting to wonder, though, whether Marina didn't meet Webster, and that LHO lied to her when they first met and said he had worked at an American exhibition in Moscow, thereby reinforcing the CIA's "marked card" operation which intentionally mixed and merged Webster's identity with Oswald's. And that Marina believed him. Regardless, so that you can do your own "research" in the future on questions like this, here are a few hints: Google Search: webster moscow exhibition marina . That will take you to Simpich's State Secret Chapter 1, and all the other websites that talk about this very issue. Once on Simpich's Chapter 1, press F and ctrl at the same time and type the word "exhibition" in the little drop-down search box. (Doing so will highlight the word "exhibition" in the text for you, making that subject or issue very easy to find in the longish text.) There. See how easy it is? Just think! You, too, can be a "researcher," Paul! -- Tommy ' she spoke Russian pretty well at that time." I reckon that's a pretty good assumption, Tommy.

Sandy "The day after the assassination, the Dallas police released photographs of Lee Oswald holding the murder weapon in one hand and a copy of a communist paper in the other hand. These photographs, according to Dallas police, were taken in his backyard. One of the photographs appeared on the cover of Life Magazine in February of 1964. Captain Fritz had shown Oswald this photograph during interrogation and Oswald said that he knew something about photography and although the photograph was his face, it had been pasted on the body and he had never seen the photographs before. The photographs were found at 2515 West Fifth Street in Irving, Texas, the home of the Paines. On two searches on the day of the assassination of this address, the Dallas police did not locate the photographs. However, another search was made the following day and it was this third search in which the Dallas police say they found the photos. But the two photos were never listed on inventory sheets of Oswald's possessions. Neither was the black shirt and the black pants that Oswald had on in the photographs ever located. Officially, two photographs but only one negative were found. Yet, Dallas police Gus Rose says that there were also two negatives. Until 1967, these photos were the only ones known to be of the backyard pose. " Oswald said that it was his head on somebody else's body, so he must have seen them on Saturday 23rd. http://www.pimall.com/nais/news/backyard.html

The Imperial reflex camera was first shown by Robert Oswald on Feb 24th 1964, three months after the shooting. He said he found it several weeks after the assassination. "Note that the FBI did NOT find the camera in Oswald's possessions. It was brought forward by brother, Robert, a couple weeks later." Neither did the DPD find it when they searched the Paine residence twice. So they were either the most inept policemen ever or the camera wasn't there when they searched. Ray, Didn't an Irving policeman or detective claim to have found it at Ruth's on 11/22/63? "It looked broken, so I didn't take it in or list it as evidence." Or words to that effect. -- Tommy I don't recall that statement, Tommy. (Not that I am saying that it was never made.) However, there is no record in any of the FBI testimony of either Robert Oswald or Marina confirming that it was the Imperial that Robert had obtained from the Paine household. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9XEhAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT210&lpg=PT210&dq=Robert+Oswald+and+the+Imperial+camera&source=bl&ots=yIofxPASjI&sig=NL-juXveZtkoqe0HQH8-v-hX874&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY1J_4z47PAhXGK8AKHU1rBpsQ6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&q=Robert%20Oswald%20and%20the%20Imperial%20camera&f=false Edit apologies, Tommy. Apparently McCabe said that. but was never called before the W.C. Again if he did see it and considered it not to be evidence, It is either gross incompetence or a later addition to the evidence. (IMO)

The Imperial reflex camera was first shown by Robert Oswald on Feb 24th 1964, three months after the shooting. He said he found it several weeks after the assassination. "Note that the FBI did NOT find the camera in Oswald's possessions. It was brought forward by brother, Robert, a couple weeks later." Neither did the DPD find it when they searched the Paine residence twice. So they were either the most inept policemen ever or the camera wasn't there when they searched.

Re the Walker shooting, two guys were seen leaving the scene of the crime after the shooting. Kirk Coleman saw them leave. Two Men Outside Walker’s House There were no witnesses to the shooting itself, but one of Walker’s neighbours was alerted by the gunshot and saw two men leaving the scene. Each man got into a car and drove away. The witness, Walter Kirk Coleman, was able to give detailed descriptions of the men and their cars (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.26, pp.437–441 [Commission Exhibit 2958]). After the JFK assassination, Coleman was shown photographs of Oswald. He denied that Oswald resembled either of the men he had seen. In any case, Oswald could not drive. Robert Surrey, an associate of General Walker, reported that he had seen two men acting suspiciously outside Walker’s house two days before the shooting. Neither man resembled Oswald (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.5, pp.446–9). {My emphasis.]

Well, that's right. All the more reason to consider Jack White's theory about DELIBERATELY lifting one end of the picture when taking a new picture of the picture. Regards, --Paul Trejo My thoughts, as well, Paul. Think it was done, after composing the photo, when they realised that "Oswald" was leaning at an impossible angle

If the back yard photos were taken from a second storey, then the under side of the steps to the left wouldn't be visible.

This is one of the few sensible posts in this entire thread. Good show, Ray! After all the scientific double talk, Ray simply rotates the photo to make everything plumb, and shows us why the photo has to be a fake. Oswald going down! Well, if perspective correction straightened all the lines as shown here, then the divergence of the lines in the original picture was due to perspective effects. Ray would not be able to straighten the lines with the perspective tool if part of the lines would be artificially tilted. I didn't rotate the photo. 'I adjusted it using the perspective tool in GIMP. And thanks, Bob.

Andrej, please use Google maps to compare (by requesting directions) between 214 West Neely Street and 604 Elsbeth Street. The BYP site was razed to the ground years ago. These two Oswald addresses were within walking distance from each other -- less than one block. They should both show on your Google map. By the way -- the West Neely Street address was a CORNER LOT. Thanks, --Paul Paul, I think you have got the two addresses the wrong way round. 214 Neeley Street is a mid house, still standing, whilst the 604 Elsbeth Street address was a corner house and has been razed.

Further to David's post. Comparison of nose shadow in both photos.

Great post, David. Perhaps you should ask Hary Farid for his comments.

Do we have any active member who lives close to Dallas, who could take some photos/measurements?