Ray Mitcham

Exactly, Bob. Farid has taken the original photo and worked on that instead of correcting the perspective. This the photo he worked on. (Note the perspective of the posts at the rear of Oswald.) This is the model he made from that photo. Compare that to this corrected perspective photo. Let us see Farid try his software on the lower photo.

This where Dr McClelland says the temple entry wound was.

That would have been virtually impossible, Ray. And that's because the photos exist in stereo pairs. .... "The single most important discovery, and one that establishes with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. ....The only way a forger can successfully alter a detailed stereoscopic image...without detection is to alter both images identically, which is, [photographic expert and HSCA panel member Frank] Scott said, "essentially impossible." .... The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the president. It also destroys another prime conspiracy belief--that the eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that were offered by the Parkland Hospital doctors (and later by some eyewitnesses to the autopsy) are proof that the autopsy photographs had been altered. Obviously, if the autopsy photographs are genuine and unaltered (which all the experts agree), then eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that contradict those photographs are not proof of alteration, as some critics claim, but nothing more than examples of understandable, mistaken recollections, or if not that, then deliberate and outright falsehoods." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 223-224 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" Good, you agree that it was virtually impossible, but not completely impossible. So we have a case where the views of up to forty people, in the Parkland emergency room, saw a massive open head wound against photos, which you have agreed could possibly be faked, do not show any wound here at all. I know which version I believe.

Dr. McCLELLAND (WC Testimony) - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open. ARRB Testimony DR. McCLELLAND: And I think as testimony that this wound looked like everybody else has described it here. It was a very large wound and I would agree that it was at least seven or eight centimeters in diameter and was mostly really in the occipital part of the skull. And as I was looking at it, a fairly large portion of the cerebellum fell out of the skull, There was already some brain there, but during the tracheostomy more fell out and that was clearly cerebellum. I mean, there was no doubt about it, and I was that far from it (indicating). MR. GUNN: When you say "that far," you're putting your hands about twelve inches apart. DR. McCLELLAND: Twelve to 18 inches.

Dr. Marion T Jenkins was Professor and Chairman of Anaesthetics. His natural position in the trauma room would be at the head of the patient monitoring and administering anaesthetics or, as with JFK, oxygen. He would have had a good chance to study the head wound carefully. Bearing this in mind, part of Jenkins' testimony to the Warren Commission is extraordinary: "Dr. JENKINS. I do not know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process. Dr. Robert N McClelland attended JFK in Parkland Memorial Hospital. He testified to the Warren Commission and they reproduced his admission note for JFK written at 16:45 22/11/63 regarding the treatment the President received. McClelland wrote, "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple" Dr. Stewart Dr. David Stewart was in attendance in Parkland Memorial Hospital when the President and Governor Connally were brought in for emergency treatment. He spent most of his time with Governor Connally. He was interviewed on KNEW television by John Dolan in 1967. "Dolan said he was particularly concerned with the statement about the shot that killed the President coming from the front'. Stewart said, " Yes, sir. This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President's head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right backside of the head and it was felt by all of the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front". Father Huber Father Oscar L Huber was one of the priests that gave the last rites to the already dead JFK (11). Part of the ceremony included tracing a cross on the President's forehead using holy oil. Obviously, Father Huber would have been in an excellent position to look at JFK's head wounds. Father Huber was quoted in the press the weekend that the President died saying that he had seen a terrible wound over the President's left eye. Malcolm Kilduff In 1963, Malcolm Kilduff was JFK's Press Secretary. In a 1991 interview with Harrison Livingtsone, Kilduff gives this remarkable response: "Livingstone: As you know, the face was not damaged at all. No witness saw any damage to the head past the midline of the skull, forward of the right ear. Kilduff: Forward of the right ear? No! Forward of the left ear, they did. I did. The bullet came in on the right side and exited the left side."

David, do you admit that at the autopsy photos and X-rays could have been altered or faked. Note - not that they were, but that they "could have been"

Sibert and O’Neill Report “....it was also apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as well as surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull” Wouldn't this constitute body alteration?

Roger, this is similar to the lean that Lovelady is making. IMO Ray, You realize that Lovelady was standing next to the center handrail, don't you? Here are two Wiegman frames, taken about 5 seconds apart. The one with the car was taken first. The one without the car was taken at the same time that Altgens 6 was taken. Credit: Chris Davidson It looks like Lovelady may have come down one step between the two frames, and is leaning forward in the second one. --Tommy Yep, Just that I didn't have a center rail available when i took the photo. Ray, What most newbies (not you) don't realize is that Altgens was standing down Elm Street at about a 60 degree angle from Wiegman's line of sight to Lovelady. That's why Lovelady appears to be hugging the left wall (and why Prayer Man isn't visible) in Altgens 6. But Lovelady wasn't hugging the left wall -- he was standing near the center handrail. --Tommy I agree, Tom, but didn't say he was hugging the left wall. I was trying to show the angle that Lovelady appeared to be hanging out at.

Roger, this is similar to the lean that Lovelady is making. IMO Ray, You realize that Lovelady was standing next to the center handrail, don't you? Here are two Wiegman frames, taken about 5 seconds apart. The one with the car was taken first. The one without the car was taken at the same time that Altgens 6 was taken. Credit: Chris Davidson It looks like Lovelady may have come down one step between the two frames, and is leaning forward in the second one. --Tommy Yep, Just that I didn't have a center rail available when i took the photo.

Roger, this is similar to the lean that Lovelady is making. IMO

Roger, as previously shown, Lovelady was leaning out to see around the corner. The shirt of the guy behind isn't hiding Lovelady's shoulder.

deleted

Martin, Custer isn't necessarily incorrect. One of the Parkland doctors (can't remember who, but I'm sure with enough time i could drag it back) said that, after the tracheostomy, the cut made by Perry closed over and it looked quite neat. Maybe when Custer saw the body he missed the tracheostomy cut and just saw the bullet hole.

Seems there were a couple of mentions, particularly this one. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12177.0.html

You are probably right, Jim. It's just that he spouts so much rubbish, I find it hard not to reply. I'll try to take your advice.

Yes, he could well be reacting to a bullet, but one being fired and not being hit. Why do you think Connally is wrong with when he says he was hit? Because it doesn't fit your scenario?

Quite a difference when the perspective is corrected. don'tcha think, Dave? And still the nose shadow remains straight down.

No, David. You think he was still turned to his right, but he wasn't hit then, so your comments are incorrect. He knows when he was hit. You don't.

I note you have no comment about Connally and his turn.

Ray, In nearly every post-assassination interview he ever gave, Governor Connally said he was in the process of turning back to his left after turning to his right when he felt the bullet hit him. He was, however, still in a "turned to the right" posture when he was hit. Connally to the Warren Con. "So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back." ​ Connally to the HSCA "About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit." Niether say he was still turned to his right. Perhaps your theory is wrong. Well, Ray, via the autopsy photos, we know where the TWO bullet holes are located in the upper back and throat of President Kennedy. And we know that no bullets were found in JFK's whole body. TWO bullet holes. But NO bullets. We were told that no bullets were found. And minimal damage in JFK's neck and back. Agreed, Plus a bullet hole in the UPPER BACK of Governor Connally. Agreed -in the upper back not the neck. Plus the simultaneous reactions of both victims visible in the Zapruder Film. Don't those facts suggest something pretty obvious? They sure do to me. Well, you are wrong. They do not react at the same time. Connally reacts after JFK raised his hands towards his throat. Plus, I'd like to know how the members of "The Bullet Had No Choice But To Hit JFK's Spine And/Or Vertebra" club can explain to me how THEY can reconcile a rifle bullet entering the bullet hole shown in the autopsy picture below and yet somehow not have that bullet hit the vertebra that those CTers insist was in the direct flight path of the bullet? If there had been a proper autopsy, these could have been explained. Seems to me the CTers who belong to that club should be asking themselves how the bullet missed the vertebrae, and not just asking LNers. For how could (or why would) any bullet stop all of its forward motion after penetrating JFK's back just an inch or two? See above answer (re autopsy) And then those same conspiracy theorists can explain how (and why) a SECOND such missile managed to do the exact same thing on the other side of the President's body --- with the throat bullet also missing the spine and/or vertebrae and also only going into Kennedy's body a very short distance. See above answer (re autopsy) The SBT bullet is far less "magical" than those two crazy miracle missiles that the conspiracists have invented. What crazy miracle missiles has anybody invented, apart from the one invented by Specter?

David, why would you have Connally turned to his right when he said he had turned to his left when he was hit by the bullet? And could you explain how a bullet could go through the position shown in Bugliosi's sketch without hitting JFK's spine?

Craig Roberts, a Vietnam sniper said in his book, "Kill Zone", that he couldn't have performed the feat. If he couldn't, you think Os could?

Thanks for posting the two videos, David. The second shows just how bullying and disrespectful, Bugliosi was with his witness. Dr Wecht gave more than as good as he got. Incidentally, do you agree that the layout of the limo shown in the video is correct?

As I recall, Bill Miller, who used to post here, argued that Black Dog Man was Arnold. I couldn't buy it but if it's true, there's your photo. With advances in technology, it might be time for independent examination of the area in Moorman that produced the Badgeman/Hardhat/Gordon Arnold images. David, have you read Donald Phillips book "A deeper darker truth", about the work of Tom Wilson? Wilson said his computer program showed the badgeman clearly. And Gordon Arnold? "After inputting all the date and processing it, Tom was able to confirm beyond any doubt that Gordon Arnold was standing exactly where he said he was and the story about a bullet whizzing past his left ear was true. Through detailed image processing, Tom was able to demonstrate why critics doubted the presence of both Gordon Arnold and the shooter behind the fence in the Moorman photograph. "They were hidden behind the higher reflective energy of the daylight coming through the image." Tom explained."Human vision could not see them. Only a computer image processing system could strip away the first layer of visual information to expose the shooter and clarify the figure of the witness."" Excerpt from "A Deeper , Darker Truth" by Donald T Phillips. Well worth buying.

As I recall, Bill Miller, who used to post here, argued that Black Dog Man was Arnold. I couldn't buy it but if it's true, there's your photo. With advances in technology, it might be time for independent examination of the area in Moorman that produced the Badgeman/Hardhat/Gordon Arnold images. David, have you read Donald Phillips book "A deeper darker truth", about the work of Tom Wilson? Wilson said his computer program showed the badgeman clearly.