Ray Mitcham

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?

Something just doesn't look right about the shoulder line to me. The upper part of the white shirt is cutting off the bottom left of Lovelady's jaw. It looks clearly pasted over, in my opinion.

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.

Something just doesn't look right about the shoulder line to me. The upper part of the white shirt is cutting off the bottom left of Lovelady's jaw. It looks clearly pasted over, in my opinion.

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.

Something just doesn't look right about the shoulder line to me. The upper part of the white shirt is cutting off the bottom left of Lovelady's jaw. It looks clearly pasted over, in my opinion.

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

The area behind "doorwayman" containing the partially blacked out suit and tie guy(that looks like it was monkeyed with) whose shirt is simultaneously in front of and behind doorwayman, cutting off his shoulder, and also appearing further down, obscured by the too large floating baby; could oswald have been photographed in that area behind doorwayman, necessitating his being obscured by suit and tie guy? Forgive me if this has been already discussed and I'm off base here, I haven't really looked into Altgens 6 all that much.

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

Jerrol Custer is not someone on whom I would rely too heavily. His ARRB testimony was frequently at odds with the known facts. For example, there is absolutely no dispute about the fact that a tracheotomy was performed on JFK at Parkland Hospital, and yet...

GUNN: Did you ever see a wound on the front of President Kennedy's throat or the anterior of the throat?

CUSTER: Yes, I did.

GUNN: Could you describe the wound that you observed?

CUSTER: A typical bullet hole.

GUNN: How large was it?

CUSTER: I would estimate, a little bigger than my little finger in dimension, across circumference - or diameter.

GUNN: Okay. So, there was not a long incision or cut on the throat that you observed; is that correct?

CUSTER: Not at that time, I didn't.

Cleary the passage of more than 30 years had diminished the reliability of Custer's recollections.

Which is to be expected.

And it proves that the whole "You wouldn't forget something like JFK's autopsy" argument is total nonsense.

Human memory is easily influenced and alters over time.

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

Ray, Dave:

Me and Bob and Ken have all left the field. I mean I think I accomplished what I set out to do, especially on the fictional rifle order.

If you keep on feeding the xxxxx, then you allow him to keep up this exhibition of nonsense which was already discredited by James, just a few weeks ago.

I mean I have no interest in doing this any more. And neither should you.

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.

What is Connally doing here, Ray? Could he be "reacting" to a bullet injury? This clip ends at Z225....

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?

Take note of the "Oswald lean" in the photo on the left below. It's remarkably similar to the "leaning" posture that many conspiracy theorists think was physically impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to achieve in the backyard photos:

Quite a difference when the perspective is corrected. don'tcha think, Dave?

And still the nose shadow remains straight down.

"I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder...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." -- John Connally; WC Testimony

-----------

But we can see in the Z-Film that Connally was not looking straight ahead, nor was he facing slightly to his left. He was still turned slightly to his RIGHT when he was hit. And the best examination of this was done by Dale Myers, whose computer animation was keyed directly to the Z-Film itself. And this is one of the frames from Myers' animation that shows Connally turned to his right at Z225....

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/kframe.htm

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.

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?

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.

And could you explain how a bullet could go through the position shown in Bugliosi's sketch without hitting JFK's spine?

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?

Is there any photo of Dealey that shows Gordon Arnold standing in front of the stockade fence in military uniform and cap? One would think that, while "Badgeman" is obscured by trees and shadow, Arnold would be register better on film, and might appear in films or photos other than the Moorman photo (source of Badgeman/Arnold images in TMWKK).

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.

Is there any photo of Dealey that shows Gordon Arnold standing in front of the stockade fence in military uniform and cap? One would think that, while "Badgeman" is obscured by trees and shadow, Arnold would be register better on film, and might appear in films or photos other than the Moorman photo (source of Badgeman/Arnold images in TMWKK).

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.

I am even number on my front side, than I am on my backside. How odd is that?

I've got a bowel on my back side.

No doubt you have read it Tommy, sounds somewhat familiar to me as well. I'd like to know the source if you happen to come across it again. Of course its wrong but still....using a distance mapping tool it looks like some 1,100 miles from Atsuki to the Chinese coast. That would be beyond not only GCA radar sets but the best long distance surveillance radar of the day. Would have to do some research but I doubt you could even have tracked it as far as South Korea. The leading surveillance radar of the 59-60 period would be the AN/FPS 7 with a range of 270 miles and an altitude of 100,000 feet.

I agree with you, Larry. The operational range of the type 80 that we used in the RAF in the fifties, had a reliable range of 250 miles and 90,000 feet.

These were used for Air Defence Operations.

As South Korea is at least 500 miles from Atsugi, then it would have been strange for them to track it even that far.

I think it's just a case of Semantiks.

Robert, I've bounced all over the place on what - if anything he is holding. I have always had some doubt he ever owned the IR. Camera doesn't have to be an IR - if it is a camera at all.

Agreed, Greg. Nowhere has it been shown that Oswald possessed an Imperial reflex.

For somebody like Oswald, allegedly interested in photography, he wouldn't have chosen such a cheap camera, anyway.