Ray Mitcham
-
Posts
1,867 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Ray Mitcham
-
-
The hairline is different in the two photos.
I disagree, Ray. The hairline is the same. Take a real close look. There's a "notch" in the hairline just like the passport photo. It just seems like the hair is combed just slightly different than the other photo. Also, in the Club Oswald's left ear looks bigger because I believe something or someone is right behind it. Maybe someone's hand.
Kathy C
The hairlines appear to be different to me. The guy on the right has a distinctive "V" in his hairline, whereas Oswald's isn't so distinctive. I also think their faces are different shapes. IMO.
-
No, David, the solution that makes most sense, is that the money order was faked.
Live with it.
-
The hairline is different in the two photos.
-
Great review of the book, Jim. Just completed it and will be buying it shortly.
Link to the review.
-
Basically, I am starting to believe that Robert Morningstar is correct. This man, Liggit, was the best cosmetician in the funeral business. What he had to do on Nov.22, 1963 was use J.D. Tippit's body as a substitute for Kennedy's, so as to control the autopsy; trying to make the wounds Kennedy should have had if he was shot from the front. He used his craft to make J.D. Tippit resemble Pres. Kennedy. Whatever he did, he did on Air Force Two during the flight to Wash. DC. So this was the battle between Kennedy's body and J.D. Tippit's. The body that went to the autopsy was J.D. Tippit's. The photos are J.D. Tippit's. So one thinks Kennedy's "body" was buried somewhat quickly in J.D. Tippit's grave. The assassins wanted Kennedy to look like he was struck from behind. But that final shot obviously came from the front. And the shot to the throat came from the Triple Underpass, where "cops," "Secret Service," and "FBI" must have been. Everyone else was told to get off the bridge. Also in the Bell film you get a glimpse of men on the railroad to the NW of the underpass. What were they doing there? There were several men. Why stand near railroad tracks if they wanted to see Kennedy? And there was a Spanish-looking man with a cap on, standing on the roof of a building adjacent to Kennedy's limo at a certain part of the Stemmons Freeway.
Jackie was suspicious of Greer, the driver who stopped, allowing Kennedy to be shot..
I learned today from the Ochelli Show that there was a shooter on the roof of the Records building on the SE corner. His reflection can be seen on the Z-film in frames 71, 72, and .74.
Kathy C
Interesting video,here, Kathleen.
I wonder if Tippet had a mole on his left shoulder.
-
Duncan,
Are you in Scotland? Or the U.S.? Or elsewhere?
If you are located outside the U.S., please tell me this: Why do non-U.S. persons have any interest in the JFK assassination?
Whatever happens in the U.S. is of great importance to the rest of the world, unfortunately.
-
Just for the record. I would like it noted that I have never faked a single image for the purpose of trying to fool anyone.
Duncan, does that mean that you have faked images, but not to fool anyone, or that you have never faked images at all?
-
shoddy outline gets the idea across.
A film clip helps,
Here is PM doing what everyone else is doing, sheilding the bright sun from their eyes.
Ed, I wondered why you had a long sleeve on the right arm of PM. If it's a long sleeve the sleeve must be two tone.
-
shoddy outline gets the idea across.
A film clip helps,
Here is PM doing what everyone else is doing, sheilding the bright sun from their eyes.
Ed, why would he be shielding his eyes when he was in the shade?
-
So, Ray,
The theory is that the guy in the brown jacket that Baker allegedly saw was a prefabricated, non-existent character, intended to represent Oswald but, fortunately for us, based on old, faulty, mole-hunt-based information that the FBI or CIA had unwittingly furnished to Army Intel or the Dallas Police Department.
--Tommy
Not my theory, Tommy. I just believe that Baker was right with his first affidavit. You are free to believe what you want to believe.
Thank you, Ray!
--Tommy
My pleasure, Tommy.
-
So, Ray,
The theory is that the guy in the brown jacket that Baker allegedly saw was a prefabricated, non-existent character, intended to represent Oswald but, fortunately for us, based on old, faulty, mole-hunt-based information that the FBI or CIA had unwittingly furnished to Army Intel or the Dallas Police Department.
--Tommy
Not my theory, Tommy. I just believe that Baker was right with his first affidavit. You are free to believe what you want to believe.
-
“Jenkins stated that the standard incisions in the cranium required to remove the brain — a ‘skull cap’ (his term for a craniotomy) — were not done, because they were not necessary.
He thought this might be explained by prior incisions, meaning that some surgery had been done prior to the autopsy.
He recalled that the damage to the top of the cranium was much more extensive than the damage to the brain itself, which he found unusual. Jenkins recalled Dr. Boswell asking if there had been surgery at Parkland Hospital.
He recalled Dr. Humes saying: ‘The brain fell out in my hands,” as he removed the brain from the body.'”
If no cranial surgery took place at Parkland, Pat, where do you think the "prior incisions" were made?
-
Jenkins said that when the body arrived it was wrapped in sheets. Other people, including Paul O'Connor, said that when it arrived it was in a body bag. The possibility arises that Jenkins wasn't there when the body first arrived.
-
Not necessarily, Pat. It could have been altered at Bethesda before the above witnesses saw it.
-
Statements by James Jenkins in a videotaped interview with Bill Law in 1998.
"Dr Humes who removed the brain, made an exclamatory statement. "the damn thing fell out in my hand."Jenkins said that "The brain stem had already been severed... Some of the areas fragmented along the sagittal suture (drew0 comment (to the effect) that they looked like they had been surgically extended..some of the fragmented areas looked like they hd been cut by a scalpel to expand them.
"To me," said Jenkins "this indicated that the brain had been surgically removed and then replaced."
"“I came out of that autopsy expecting them to say that there were two shooters, one in the right front, one behind” “What we saw that night was nothing relating to the (final and official) pathology report. There was no relation to it”
If Jenkins was with the body from its arrival to the autopsy, when did the above scapel cuts take place?
-
Ray,
Baker, having been up a bunch of stairs outside to reach what was to him the 2nd floor (for all he knew), soon ascended one flight of a split-level stairway, and did not know whether he was on the 3rd or 4th floor. We have the benefit of diagrams today to see that his description is way off the mark. He was not going to night school studying to be an architect.
The stairs were a big part of his recollection of the TSBD building while filling out his affidavit. After all, he had climbed them from the 1st to the 5th. Once he reached the top of the first set of stairs, which he had described being on the "3rd or 4th floor", he didn't see a man walking toward the stairway, did he?
You're taking a poor description that does give the hunch that perhaps the lunchroom incident was hoaxed, but this claim requires proof, not just a collection of more hunches. Each facet of the hoax hypothesis has a reasonable, mundane alternative explanation readily available. And several facets have to be completely distorted in order to fit a possible hoax scenario. Look at them, please, they are listed in post #120.
You have fallen for this mullarkey, it leads only to imaginary encounters and fruitless speculation. But hey, it's only a homicide case, let's indulge in sophistry as much as possible, right? Life's too short for achievable answers that will sustain.
So a trained cop doesn't know when he has reached the second floor. You think he mistook a turn in the stairs for a floor?
He saw a man walking away from him not that he walked into the lunch room and accosted him.
If you believe his later version, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that you might be interested in.
It's a confusing building, Ray. Maybe that's one of the reasons it was chosen. It has a passenger elevator that only goes to up to the fourth floor, stairs near the front door that only go up to the second floor, a basement that's half above ground and half under ground, split-level stairways, eccentric freight elevators, etc. Baker was a motorcycle cop, not an architect. He had lots on his mind. No wonder he was confused. If I had been Baker, I, too, probably would have been confused, when I was writing my report, about which floor I had encountered Oswald on in that darn building.
Why?
For the simple reason that I wouldn't have made any special effort to remember the incident. Based on what Truly had told me about him at the time, I would have thought that Oswald was of no consequence.
I don't know about you, but I don't try to remember details of things that I think are of no consequence in my life. I have a hard enough time remembering the things I think are important!
--Tommy
A cop trained to be observant described a guy on the third or fourth floor as
"... a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket."
Third or fourth floor.....no.... ..second floor (allegedly)
White man................... check
30 years old................ no...... 24 years old.
165 lbs..........................no..... 131 lbs
dark hair..............,,,,,,,,,,check
Light brown jacket.......No ... patterned shirt.
I go with his first affidavit.
Ray,
Ironically (?) the height and weight match almost perfectly those sneakily given for Oswald by FBI agent John Fain back in 1960 when he interviewed Marguerite (who later said Lee never weighed more than 150 pounds in his life) after Oswald had "defected" to the U.S.S.R. These "vitals" for Oswald were forwarded to CIA which incorporated them into its computerized Biographical Registry, probably as part of an ongoing "mole hunt" involving another "defector," Robert Webster, at the time.
--Tommy
PS Baker wasn't "trained as an observer." Studies have shown that policemen don't remember things any better than the common person.
Yes, strange co-incidence that the description almost agrees word for word with the CIA description. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Re cops not being trained observers, I disagree as one of the attributes top being in law enforcement is as follows.
"When an officer has properly developed his power of observation, he automatically responds to noises, sights, and smells that are not part of the everyday tenor of his surroundings. "
From the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.
Maybe Baker hadn't developed his powers of observation but most normal cops do. -
Ray,
Baker, having been up a bunch of stairs outside to reach what was to him the 2nd floor (for all he knew), soon ascended one flight of a split-level stairway, and did not know whether he was on the 3rd or 4th floor. We have the benefit of diagrams today to see that his description is way off the mark. He was not going to night school studying to be an architect.
The stairs were a big part of his recollection of the TSBD building while filling out his affidavit. After all, he had climbed them from the 1st to the 5th. Once he reached the top of the first set of stairs, which he had described being on the "3rd or 4th floor", he didn't see a man walking toward the stairway, did he?
You're taking a poor description that does give the hunch that perhaps the lunchroom incident was hoaxed, but this claim requires proof, not just a collection of more hunches. Each facet of the hoax hypothesis has a reasonable, mundane alternative explanation readily available. And several facets have to be completely distorted in order to fit a possible hoax scenario. Look at them, please, they are listed in post #120.
You have fallen for this mullarkey, it leads only to imaginary encounters and fruitless speculation. But hey, it's only a homicide case, let's indulge in sophistry as much as possible, right? Life's too short for achievable answers that will sustain.
So a trained cop doesn't know when he has reached the second floor. You think he mistook a turn in the stairs for a floor?
He saw a man walking away from him not that he walked into the lunch room and accosted him.
If you believe his later version, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that you might be interested in.
It's a confusing building, Ray. Maybe that's one of the reasons it was chosen. It has a passenger elevator that only goes to up to the fourth floor, stairs near the front door that only go up to the second floor, a basement that's half above ground and half under ground, split-level stairways, eccentric freight elevators, etc. Baker was a motorcycle cop, not an architect. He had lots on his mind. No wonder he was confused. If I had been Baker, I, too, probably would have been confused, when I was writing my report, about which floor I had encountered Oswald on in that darn building.
Why?
For the simple reason that I wouldn't have made any special effort to remember the incident. Based on what Truly had told me about him at the time, I would have thought that Oswald was of no consequence.
I don't know about you, but I don't try to remember details of things that I think are of no consequence in my life. I have a hard enough time remembering the things I think are important!
--Tommy
A cop trained to be observant described a guy on the third or fourth floor as
"... a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket."
Third or fourth floor.....no.... ..second floor (allegedly)
White man................... check
30 years old................ no...... 24 years old.
165 lbs..........................no..... 131 lbs
dark hair..............,,,,,,,,,,check
Light brown jacket.......No ... patterned shirt.
I go with his first affidavit.
-
Ray,
Baker, having been up a bunch of stairs outside to reach what was to him the 2nd floor (for all he knew), soon ascended one flight of a split-level stairway, and did not know whether he was on the 3rd or 4th floor. We have the benefit of diagrams today to see that his description is way off the mark. He was not going to night school studying to be an architect.
The stairs were a big part of his recollection of the TSBD building while filling out his affidavit. After all, he had climbed them from the 1st to the 5th. Once he reached the top of the first set of stairs, which he had described being on the "3rd or 4th floor", he didn't see a man walking toward the stairway, did he?
You're taking a poor description that does give the hunch that perhaps the lunchroom incident was hoaxed, but this claim requires proof, not just a collection of more hunches. Each facet of the hoax hypothesis has a reasonable, mundane alternative explanation readily available. And several facets have to be completely distorted in order to fit a possible hoax scenario. Look at them, please, they are listed in post #120.
You have fallen for this mullarkey, it leads only to imaginary encounters and fruitless speculation. But hey, it's only a homicide case, let's indulge in sophistry as much as possible, right? Life's too short for achievable answers that will sustain.
So a trained cop doesn't know when he has reached the second floor. You think he mistook a turn in the stairs for a floor?
He saw a man walking away from him not that he walked into the lunch room and accosted him.
If you believe his later version, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that you might be interested in.
-
The lunch room encounter story is a farce.
This is what happened according to Baker's first day affidavit.
"Friday November 22, 1963 I was riding motorcycle escort for the President of the United States. At approximately 12:30 pm I was on Houston Street and the President's car had made a left turn from Houston onto Elm Street. Just as I approached Elm Street and Houston I heard three shots. I realized those shots were rifle shots and I began to try to figure out where they came from. I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building. As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said, "Let's take the elevator." The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket."
No mention of a lunch room. He saw a man walking away from the stairway. A totally different story to his later fiction.
-
Thanks, Vanessa.
The film to which you link is interesting but typical. Typical because the narrator takes ambiguous data and out of the date makes assertions.
Assertions are opinions that masquerade as facts, which masquerade as "evidence".
The film to which you link is interesting but is unconvincing in some respects. For example, Billy Lovelady had an erect posture. The Billy Lovelady character in the 11-22-63 films had an unusual, head-thrusting-forward posture.
Thanks, Vanessa.
The film to which you link is interesting but typical. Typical because the narrator takes ambiguous data and out of the date makes assertions.
Assertions are opinions that masquerade as facts, which masquerade as "evidence".
The film to which you link is interesting but is unconvincing in some respects. For example, Billy Lovelady had an erect posture. The Billy Lovelady character in the 11-22-63 films had an unusual, head-thrusting-forward posture.
Dear Mr Tidd
"Billy Lovelady had an erect posture"?? I'm not sure what to make of that statement. Are you saying Billy Lovelady never stooped or bent over at all?
Billy Lovelady can be clearly seen in Altgens 6 leaning out past the TSBD entrance to look at the presidential motorcade which accounts for his 'head-thrusting-forward posture'.
Lovelady is also visible standing next to Prayer Man in Weigman as Bart points out in his film.
So Lovelady and his posture are not actually that relevant to the PM debate anymore except in so far as we know that Lovelady is not PM.
If that the only point you can criticise in the film?
Vanessa,
It's my personal opinion that Mr. Tidd doesn't like to look at JFK assassination films and photographs very closely because he thinks that they were all altered. I explained to him on another thread that the reason Lovelady's posture and positioning appear so different in the Altgens 6 still photograph and the Wiegman film clip is due to the wildly different angles of the photographers involved, plus the fact that Lovelady (who was by the center hand rail the whole time) leaned forward at a certain point.
But to no avail.
My only problem with Prayer Person's being Oswald is that in the Wiegman clip you can see Prayer Person lower a 35 mm camera (or a pair of binoculars) from his / her face. Was Oswald known to have taken a 35 mm camera or a pair of binoculars to work with him that day, or were either of those things found inside the TSBD after the assassination?
--Tommy
How do you know it was a 35mm camera or a pair of binoculars? Although I did not at first agree with her, Linda made a very good and believable case for the glowing object, seen in PM's hands, to be a reflex camera. Light travels both ways through the viewing lens, reflecting off of a 45° mirror inside of the camera. The glow seen is merely available light above PM's head being reflected off of this mirror and out the front lens of the camera.
Another interesting thing I discovered about reflex cameras is that not all photographers hold them at their waist and take photos by looking down through the viewfinder. According to one article, it is possible to hold the camera up to the eye, and scan the viewfinder. However, I would actually like to try this myself before I commit totally to believing it. Hard to find reflex cameras nowadays, though.
Bob, If it was the Imperial reflex "he" was holding,(as that is the model he is supposed to have owned), he wouldn't have been holding it up to his eye as that model, unlike better quality SLRs, didn't have an separate view finder for eye level photos.
-
Lovely coached? Listen to his reply to Ball.
Mr. LOVELADY - I drive my truck here (indicating) but we came in from this direction; that would have to be west.
Mr. BALL - You came into the building from the west side?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Where did you go into the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - Through that, those raised-up doors.
Mr. BALL - Through the raised-up doors?
Mr. LOVELADY - Through that double door that we in the morning when we get there we raised. There's a fire door and they have two wooden doors between it.
Mr. BALL - You came in through the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.""I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie"
Why would he mention "Vickie" when her name hadn't been mentioned at in testimony or questioning?
How would he know to say he couldn't swear that it wasn't Vickie, if her name hadn't previously been mentioned to him?
-
You said what most of us think, Barry. Thank you.
-
They must have changed the regulations just for 1963, Sandy.
-
Harry Holmes to the Warren Omission
"I relayed this information to them and told them to start on the 13th because he could have bought it that morning and that he could have gotten it by airmail that afternoon, so they began to search and within 10 minutes they called back and said they had a money order in that amount issued on, I don't know that I show, but it was that money order in an amount issued at the main post office, which is the same place as this post office box was at that time, box 2915 and the money order had been issued early on the morning of March the 12th, 1963."
How did Holmes know that the money order was issued early on that morning?
Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Don't you mean three, David? After all, you believe in the Magic bullet.