Ray Mitcham

This is what you get when you play around with bucket fill in GIMP> Strange that the whole area comes out red with one press of the button.

Stringer to The ARRB. Gunn: Do you see the phrase, next to the last sentence, of the document- I’ll read it to you “To my personal knowledge this is the total amount of film exposed on this occasion?” Do you see that? Stringer: Yes Gunn: Is it your understanding that that statement is incorrect? Stringer: Well, yes. If they say that there were only 16sheets of film out of {sic]11, I’d say that was correct. Gunn: When you signed this document, Exhibit 78, were you intending to either agree or disagree with the conclusion reached in the second to last- next to last sentence? Stringer: I told him I disagreed with him, but they said “Sign it” Gunn: And who is “they” ? Who said “Sign it”? Stringer: Captain Stover. Gunn: Was Riebe in the room when you signed this? Stringer : I don’t remember. His signature is on it, so I guess he was there. But I don’t remember. ——————————————————————————————————————————— Gunn Did it really take that much time to put a ruler into the photo Stringer: Well, they get it set up and all that. I mean, when they were doing it, they were in hurry and said, “Let’s get it over with.” Gunn : Did you object to that at all? Stringer: You don’t object to things. Gunn: Some people do. Stringer: Yeah, they do. But they don’t last long. ——————————————————————————————————————————- Gunn: Were you ever previously under any kind of order or restraint from being able to talk about the autopsy? Stringer: Yes I was. Gunn : Can you explain, very briefly, what the nature of the order was or the circumstances that put you under the order? Stringer: Well, I think it was the morning after the autopsy. We were gathered into the commanding officer’s office of the Naval Medical School, who through the fear go God and everyone and he had a paper that we all had to sign that we would not talk to anyone about what had happened on that particular night. Gunn: Do you remember the name of the person who gave you the order? Stringer: John Stover.

I'm the same height as Oswald, and at his age, 25, I was just under 140 lbs. He looks to be a lot fitter than I was, so put me on the 131 lbs rota.

Two guys who lived in the same village but who were totally unrelated.

Strange that the only evidence supporting your view is photographic, i.e autopsy photos, and the Zapruder film. The easiest items to fake, How come the autopsy photos disagree with the Parkland witnesses? Were they all hallucinating?

Sandra Spence to ARRB On November 23, 1963, she received three or four duplex film holders (six or eight shots) of color negatives from a federal agent named Fox, which she understood to be autopsy photographs. She developed the negatives, made prints and gave all materials back to Fox. The president's body was "very clean" unlike other autopsy photographs she had seen. There was a circular wound at the base of the front of the president's neck, about the size of a person's thumb. There was a wound in the back of the president's head, at about the center, 3 or 4 inches above the hairline. It was about 2 to 2.5 inches wide, which she described as a "blown out chunk." She saw no damage to the side of the president's head. She could not tell whether or not there was damage to the top of the head because the negatives she processed did not show it. Q. Are you able to - let’s start with a conjecture as to whether the photographs that you developed and the photographs that you observed today, could have been taken at different times/ A I would definitely say they were taken at different times. Q. Is there any question in your mind whether the photographs that you saw today were photographs of President Kennedy? There is no doubt they are pictures of President Kennedy. Q. Is there any doubt in your mind that the photographs that you saw in November 1963 also were of President Kennedy No, that was President Kennedy, but between those photographs and the ones we did, there had to be some massive cosmetic things done. to the President;s body. And DVP believes the HSCA. ​Now who would you rather believe the Parkland witnesses who all saw a hole at the rear of the President's head or the HCSA autopsy doctors who only looked at photos (from whatever source.)

Not so. Shaw was found not guilty of conspiring with Ferris and Oswald. As neither of Ferrie or Oswald were tried, then neither of them could be found guilty or not guilty. Therefore Oswald was not found "Not guilty" Logic, Mr Carroll.

If Oswald was not charged, how could he be found not guilty?

The face sheet shows where the bullet wound was (drawn in) but the written detail was added later. The drawn spot matches the holes in the jacket and the shirt. It also ties in with Burkley's written statement that the wound was at the third thoracic Vertabrae. The only persons who said the wound was in the neck were the "under orders"" autopsy surgeons. Believe them if you want. Why was JFK's body unlawfully spirited away by the Secret Service under threat of armed force? Why was the autopsy performed by the military? Why do the autopsy photographs differ markedly from recollections of the Parkland Doctors?

Garrison formally accused Lee Oswald of plotting the murder of JFK, and the jury of 12 New Orleans citizens took less than an hour to find that Lee was innocent of Garrison's silly charge. If you want to be a sucker, Dawn, go ahead and be my guest. I have never seen you post a useful comment in the history of the Education Forum Did I miss Oswald's trial?

Thanks, John. That's before either of my two stints here at the EF. It's possible I've discussed the "pipes" with some CTers in past years. I'll have to search my archives for "pipes" and "impossible" and "conspiracy theorists will do anything to keep Oswald out of that Nest". Two stints here at the EF?? What, are you here on assignment or something? It means he's been a member here on two different occasions. Definition of stint 1. A length of time spent in a particular way, especially doing a job or fulfilling a duty: a two-year stint in the military.

Okay, so, how did he know the scope was not accurate? Exactly my point in post 145, Bob.

Oh, please, Vince - Why do you see 1963 but deny 2001? And on the strength of this book? As I said the last time I criticized this work and one of its authors growled litigiously - Readers, judge for yourself. But do it at the library. Vince then tell me how building 7 fell? And how did a tv station in England (not positive of the place) know this would occur and so report before it happened? The evidence for conspiracy on 9-11 is overwhelming. Here's youtube video of the announcement, Dawn.

Thanks for linking that, David.

Not my comment. Tell Wiki and the American bar Association.

Looking through a scope at the target, If bios first shot missed, how would he know where it hit in order to zero his scope? (Just asking as a non-hunter.)

I have the highest degree you can obtain, a JD. So the SJD isn't higher? The S.J.D. is described as the "highest degree in law" by the University of Virginia, the "terminal degree in law" by Indiana Universityand Harvard Law School and as the "most advanced law degree" by Yale Law School, Georgetown Law, New York University ]and Stanford University. The National Association of Legal Professionals states that the J.S.D./S.J.D. is "typically the most advanced or terminal law degree that would follow the earning of the LL.M. and J.D. degrees." However, some argue that the J.D. is the highest "professional doctorate" in law, on the grounds that some universities describe the S.J.D. as a "postdoctoral degree."and the American Bar Association has issued a Council Statement stating that the J.D. be considered as being equivalent to the Ph.D. for educational employment purposes.

WTF? Why on Earth would anyone think Norman's ears had to be "ringing" from the shots? Is that a new theory by some CT Denialist? If that were the case, Oswald would have been deaf by the time he reached DPD Headquarters on 11/22. We agree totally, David. But he wasn't. You sound like Robert "Z285" Harris now. Harris thinks the entire crowd in Dealey Plaza would have been "jumping out of their skins" (a Harris quote) if Oswald had been firing his Carcano from the sixth floor. Almost SIXTY FEET up, and Harris thinks people would have had no choice but to be jumping out of their skins with fright and "startle reactions", which, of course, we don't see ANY of in the Zapruder Film at all. And because of this lack of "startle reactions", Harris has decided there were no audible shots fired at all prior to Z285 of the Z-Film. (Yes, he really said that---thousands of times at aaj and MacRae's place.) You probably concur with such junk too, eh David J.? Putting words in other people's mouth again? And keep denying the obvious, David. Just keep on denying it. After all, it's what CTers do best. (Just ask Kenneth Drew....or the late Harold Weisberg.) And I've always loved the "Shells all pointing the same way and only an inch apart" claptrap. Better than a barrel full of monkeys. What we have here, then, is the tidiest team of Patsy Framers known to man. They wanted to make SURE to advertise the fact that the shells were definitely planted there, so they took the effort to make sure the shells were in a nice neat row, all pointing the same way. The plotters should have been awarded the Good Housekeepiong Award for 1963 for such neatness and efficiency. (And yet David Josephs believes it.) David, did Fritz pick up the shells and then replace them or not?

When can I expect the "knocking down" to start, Ray? It certainly hasn't happened as yet. Your "bullet through the shirt" has gone pear shaped. And if you think you've advanced the super silly "Frazier Lied; There Was No Paper Bag At All" theory, you're dreaming. Who said I advanced the theory? So who's the one who is dreaming? And please explain why Frazier made it impossible for Oswald's rifle to fit inside a bag he (or the police) merely "invented" from whole cloth? You never did tell us why Mr. Frazier would have done something so incredibly stupid and contradictory. The "No Bag At All" theory goes sliding down the toilet (where it belongs) based on that contradiction alone. Not at all. How would he know what size bag the rifle would fit into? He made the bag theory up. Once he and his sister had decided on the size they couldn't retract. His bag was just like the one not photographed in the sniper's nest. None existent.

Yeah, sure Ray. All of Oswald's known LIES are really TRUTHS, right? And all of Buell Frazier's TRUTHS are really big fat LIES (and the same with his sister, Linnie Mae). As usual, a CTer has everything backward and has no idea how to properly assess the JFK evidence. Just another day at the office for CTers. All speculation, but not a single non-LHO bullet or non-LHO gunman. You have your position as a total believer in the holy book of Warren. Keep spouting your rubbish, David. We all enjoy knocking it down.

Unfortunately for you, the chaff is this case is the wheat and the wheat the chaff.

I guess you have a problem reading, eh Ray? Replay..... "I, on the other hand, don't have to call Frazier a "xxxx" even once. I don't think he LIED when he said the paper bag was only around 24 to 27 inches long. I merely think he was WRONG. He miscalculated the length of the bag. Nothing more than that. (And, yes, so did Linnie Mae Randle in some of her bag estimates.) But I don't think either of them were liars." -- DVP Right. so you believe he was right about seeing the bag, but wrong about the size. I think the word for that is cherry picking.

So. is it your contention that Frazier was telling the truth about the bag but he was lying about the size? p.s. You do not have my permission to reprint any of my posts on your site.

So, you really DO believe what I suggested in my previous post --- i.e., you think Frazier's bag was an "invention", but then he decided to say the "invention" (which must have been invented to frame Oswald with the Carcano rifle, right?) was too short of an invention to allow Lee Oswald's rifle to fit inside of it. So, Ray, was Buell Frazier just really xxxxty at math, or was he the dumbest patsy framer ever put on this Earth? Which is it? Because it's got to be one of those options. What part of "The bag was an invention, David. Frazier covered his ass. Apart from Frazier and his sister, nobody else saw Oswald with a large paper bag. " do you not understand?

And you think you AREN'T doing that exact same thing, Ray? You BELIEVE Frazier was 100% right about the "short bag". But you DISBELIEVE Frazier (and call him an outright xxxx) when Frazier said that Oswald had "no lunch" with him on 11/22. I, on the other hand, don't have to call Frazier a "xxxx" even once. I don't think he LIED when he said the paper bag was only around 24 to 27 inches long. I merely think he was WRONG. He miscalculated the length of the bag. Nothing more than that. (And, yes, so did Linnie Mae Randle in some of her bag estimates.) But I don't think either of them were liars. But you MUST think Frazier WAS a xxxx regarding the "No Lunch Bag" topic. Right? And yet you don't seem to realize the hycrocritical nature of this remark you just now aimed at me: "You just believe the parts you want to believe?" -- R. Mitcham There's also another thing regarding Buell Wesley Frazier's testimony that you and other CTers never seem to have thought of. And that is.... IF Buell Frazier had actually just INVENTED the large paper bag to put into Lee Oswald's hands on 11/22/63, then WHY on Earth would Frazier have made his make-believe bag too short to hold the item that was supposed to be in that bag? If it's an invented bag (and the police "forced" Frazier to tell that lie, per James DiEugenio's theory), then it stands to reason that any such bag invented from whole cloth would have been big enough to house that Carcano that Lee Oswald owned. Right? But if we're to believe CTers like Ian Griggs and Jim DiEugenio, Frazier's MAKE-BELIEVE bag and, ergo, MAKE-BELIEVE measurements for that bag do not go together at all. So the alleged xxxx has just destroyed his own lie by making a non-existen bag way too small. Brilliant, huh? LOTS MOR "PAPER BAG" TALK AND DEBATES: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-his-rifle-and-his-paper-bag.html The bag was an invention, David. Frazier covered his ass. Apart from Frazier and his sister, nobody else saw Oswald with a large paper bag. If you believe Frazier was right about the bag then you have to believe he was right about the size. Which is it "No bag" or "too short bag"