Ray Mitcham

Keep digging, David. Eventually you will realise the truth.

So you believe he was right when he said the bag was too short to carry a broken down Carcano. No ? You just believe the parts you want to believe? Your double murderer claim is just that. A claim. Nothing more.

So you believe Frazier, David?

That's just ONE of the things (among many) that make up the SUM TOTAL that we need to evaluate, Mark. I'm not saying that the "No Lunch" thing, by ITSELF, "proves" Oswald is guilty. And you HAVE to know I'm not suggesting any such silly thing. But that "No Lunch" item is, IMO, just one additional piece of the puzzle in Oswald's "Out Of The Ordinary" day that I was talking about in my 10-point list. Because, by all accounts, Oswald usually DID take his lunch with him when he went to work at the TSBD. Plus, the "No Lunch" thing also shows he lied to the police after the shooting too. Because we know from Buell Frazier's testimony that Frazier asked Lee why he didn't have any lunch bag with him that morning (Nov. 22). And Oswald told Frazier that he was going to "buy" his lunch that day from the catering service man. But here's what Oswald told Captain Fritz: "He [Oswald] said he had a cheese sandwich and some fruit and this was the only package he had brought with him to work and denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister." -- Via Will Fritz' written report (WR; Page 605) Now, who is the person most likely to be telling the truth about Oswald's lunch --- Buell Wesley Frazier or Lee Harvey Oswald? If Frazier was covering his ass with his bag story, then obviously Oswald

I don't answer hypothetical questions, David. Maybe you think the right hand side of the President's shirt "bunched up" p.s Note the position of the slit. If it had have been a bullet passing through the shirt, it would have passed directly through the tie, not clipping it.

You expect too much, Ray. But expecting way too much is always a good way to justify your remaining in the "SBT Is A Load Of Rubbish" camp. You expect too much, Ray. But expecting way too much is always a good way to justify your remaining in the "SBT Is A Load Of Rubbish" camp. I expect the truth, something of which the Warren report was very shy.

Specter's theory looks a bit silly when you put the throat wound where the surgeon said it was above the tie. Warren report Mr. Dulles. I see. Dr. Carrico. The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here. Mr. Dulles. ‘I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is? Dr. Carrico. Yes, sir ; just where the tie--- Mr. Dulles. A little bit to the left. Dr. Carrico. To the right. Mr. Dulles. Yes; to the right. (note how Dulles cut off what Dr Carrico was going to say.)

Absolutely nailed it, Ron. Brilliant comment.

Glenn, this is a photo taken from the spot Brennan was. Could you describe anybody the way he did from this angle?

Glad to see you are keeping a collection of my postings, David. I'm flattered.

"Riddled"? I beg to differ. Some early reports mentioned the "knoll", yes. Which is understandable, since many witnesses were tricked by the sounds of Oswald's three shots from the TSBD. But note that NOBODY in the early news footage said they thought shots came from TWO different directions. 'Since many witnesses were tricked by the sounds" Oh, the arrogance of the poster!

David, could you explain your opinion of why the Secret Service "stole" the President's coffin at gun point, when the law should have been upheld and the autopsy held in Dallas?

Glenn, the camera position in the black and white photo is much to the right of the camera position of the colour photo.(Note the different views of the walls behind the sign.) This would account for the apparent difference in positions of the spectators. IMO.

The film "Twelve Angry Men" At the start, Eleven for conviction, one against. At the end, twelve for acquittal. 12-5

Well, for Pete sake, Ray, what did you expect the report to say? The Olivier report couldn't possibly go any further than a "could be". If they had gone further and said "definitely did", I can just hear the CTers bitching about that wording. But many conspiracists insist that the 6.5mm. Carcano ammunition couldn't possibly have caused the type of head damage that JFK sustained. However, the above excerpt from the Olivier/Dziemian report totally demolishes crackpot observations like the one quoted below.... "The weapon, which was not even a rifle [???], could not have fired the bullets that killed the president. .... The [Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets, which were standard copper-jacketed World War II-vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the explosive damage. .... This kind of ammunition...does not explode. .... [An] X-ray of the President's head...displays a pattern of metallic debris as effects of the impact of an exploding bullet, which could not have been caused by ammunition of the kind Oswald was alleged to have used, thereby exonerating him." -- James H. Fetzer jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/16-smoking-guns-or-16-misfires.html In short, Dr. Fetzer and all other conspiracy theorists who have advanced similar theories about Oswald's rifle and bullets do not have the slightest idea what they are talking about. Enough said. So is your opinion, Oswald used different types of ammunition in his rifle? One bullet which travelled unscathed through JFK back throat, Connally's back, chest, wrist and thigh, yet the bullet which hit The President in the head exploded inside his skull. Just as a matter of interest,where in the above statement by Edgewood, does it say that only the Mannlicher rifle, allegedly owned by Oswald, could have done the same?

Glenn and Roger. Wilson shows with his computer program how the shot did (in his reading of the evidence) come from the drain. Unfortunately he did not leave the details of his program, before he died, so his results cannot be peer reviewed.

"Could be". Enough said.

Glenn, before you go, may I suggest you read Tom Wilson's book " A Deeper Darker Truth". He comes up with some very interesting ideas.

Thank you, Mr Nall, This from White House photographer Robert L. Knudsen. Mr. Knudsen testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which in the late 1970s reopened the official investigation into the killings of both President Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Mrs. Knudsen said he later told her that four or five of the pictures the committee showed him did not represent what he saw or photographed that night and that at least one of them had been altered. "His son Bob said that his father told him that 'hair had been drawn in' on the photos to conceal a missing portion of the top-back of President Kennedy's head," according to a review board memo about a meeting with Mr. Knudsen's family. Mr. Knudsen's observations were identical to those of another autopsy photographer, Floyd Riebe as well as Robert Groden who also reported the alteration of exactly the same photographs, in exactly the same location. The House Assassinations Committee suppressed both Mr. Knudsen's testimony and Mr. Groden's report of the alteration. As Bob, said, How can you believe anything the HSCA states?

Post removed.

And by improving my "reasoning skills", you mean I should accept the notion that the JFK X-ray is nothing but a lie and a sham. Right, Glenn? Even though I also know what is written on page 41 of HSCA Volume 7?.... "The evidence indicates 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." Thanks, Glenn. But no thanks. I'll stick with my current batch of reasoning skills. Lest I end up in the "Everything's Fake" arena. Kay Spencer (developed photos of JFK autopsy) Gunn: " Ms Spencer, what we would like to do, is start with the very first view, which corresponds to color Nos 29,30 and 31. Mrs Spencer, could you go to the light box and tell me whether you can identify the color transparency of view No 1 and image No 29 as having seen that before. Mrs Spencer: No Mr Gunn: In what respect is the image No 29 different from what you previously saw? Mrs Spencer: Like I said there was none of the blood and matted hair. Mr Gunn: Can you explain what you mean by that? Are you seeing blood and matted hair on image 29 Mrs Spencer: On the transparency. Mr Gunn: But that was not present, the blood and matted hair was not present- Mrs Spencer” I don’t remember. Mr Gunn: -on the images you saw? Mrs Spencer: No ………………………….. Mr Gunn: Lets turn to the print. Can you identify the print as being the print that you printed yourself at N.P.C.? Mrs Spencer: I don’t believe it is. Mr Gunn: Can you look at the back - turn the light on, please, - can you look at the back of the print and identify whether that is the same type of paper as the Exhibit No 147, that you brought with you today? Mrs Spencer: No It’s not. ………………………………. Mr Gunn: Ms Spencer, have you had the opportunity now to look at the second view corresponding to colour Nos 26,27 qnd 28? Mrs Spencer: Yes, I have. Mr Gunn: Do those two images correspond to the photographs that you developed at NOPC in November 1963? Mrs Spencer: No Mr Gunn: In what way are they different? Mrs Spencer: There was no- the film that I see in the prints that we printed did not have the massive head damages that is visible here. Mr Gunn: Putting aside the question of the damage of the head, does the remainder of the body, the face, correspond to what you observed. Mrs Spencer: No. Mr Gunn: In what way is it different? Mrs Spencer: The face in the photographs that we did, did not have the stress that these photos - on the face that these photos show. Mr Gunn: Could you describe a little bit more what you mean by that? Mrs Spencer: The face, the eyes were closed and the the face, the mouth was closed, and it was more of a rest position than these show. ………. Mr Gunn: Could we next look at View No 3, identified as the superior view of the head corresponding to clor Nos 32,33,34,35,36 and 37. Mrs Spencer have you had an opportunity to look at the third view? Mrs Spencer: Yes I have. Mr Gunn: Do you think those two images, again when you are looking at a positive transparency and a print. Do those correspond to the photographs that you developed in November 1963. Mrs Spencer: No Mr Gunn: In what way are they different? Mrs Spencer: Again, none of the heavy damage that shows in these photographs were[sic] visible in the photographs we did. Mr Gunn: So, just to make sure that I am understanding correctly, previously, in your deposition, you described a wound, a small circular wound in the back of the head approximately two inches or so as I recall that you stated, whereas these show a much larger injury. Is that correct? Mrs Spencer: That is correct. …………….. Mr Gunn: In addition to what you have already said in describing the other photographs, is there any thing additional in these photographs that appears to be different? Mrs Spencer: They are using a measuring device, which I don’t remember in any of the photographs that we produced, and I don’t remember any hands on the President during any of the shots that we reproduced. Mr Gunn: Now could you look at the place on the back of tPresident Kennedy’s head that corresponds to where you identified a wound on the back of the head. Do you see that wound present in these photographs. Mrs Spencer: No. I do not. Mr Gunn: Would this view have shown the wound that you previously saw in the photographs of President Kennedy’s head? Mrs Spencer: Yes, the wound I seen[sic] would have been approximately in this area. Mr Gunn: If we describe that as roughly the cowlick area, would that be fair to say? Mrs Spencer: Yes. ………………. Mr Gunn: Mrs Spencer, could you look at the wound in the throat of President Kennedy and tell me whether that corresponds to the wound that you observed in the photographs that you developed? Mrs Spencer: No, it does not. Mr Gunn: In what way are they different? Mrs Spencer: This a large gaping gash type. Mr Gunn: That is, in the fifth view, it’s a large gaping gash, is that correct? Mrs Spencer: Yes. in the one we had seen, it was on the right side, approximately half an inch. Mr Gunn; Is the wound in a different location or is it just a larger wound on the throat? Mrs Spencer: It could just be a larger wound. …………. Mr Gunn: In terms of the locations of the wound, do you see any differences or similarities with those that you developed in November 1963? Mrs Spencer: No, there is no similarity Mr Gunn: Could we look now at the seventh view described a s a missile wound at the entrance and posterior skull following reflection of scalp corresponding to colour Nos 44 and 45. Mrs Spencer, in November 1063, did you see any of the images corresponding to the seventh view that you have in front of you now? Mrs Spencer: No Mr Gunn: Are you able to identify what that view is? Mrs Spencer: It appears to be the opening of the cavity, top of the head, with the brain removed. Mr Gunn: Could you look once again at the paper for the colour print and tell me whether that is the paper that you were using in 1963 at the NPC? Mrs Spencer: No it is not. ………………… Mr Gunn: Ms Spencer, you have now had an opportunity to view all the colored images both transparencies and prints, that are in the possession of the National Archives elated to the autopsy of President Kennedy. Based on your knowledge, are there any images of the autopsy of President Kennedy that are not included in those views that we saw? Mrs Spencer: The views that we produced at the Photographic Center are not included. Mr Gunn: Ms Spencer, how certain are you that there were other photographs of President Kennedy’s autopsy that are not included in the set that you have just seen. Mrs Spencer:I could personally say that they are not included. ………snip Mr Gunn: 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? Mrs Spencer: I would definitely say they were taken at different times. Mr Gunn: Is there any question in your mind whether the photographs that you saw today were photographs of President Kennedy? Mrs Spencer: No. That was President Kennedy. but between those photographs and the ones that we did, there had to be some massive cosmetic things done to the President;s body.

E-Mail from Gary Mack...... Subject: B.G. "Bobby" Brown Date: 6/6/2015 11:31:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein ----------------- Ha-Ha, now Mitcham makes up a story that the BY photo of Oswald holding his rifle over his head was taken in Russia! Based on what or who? If he'd bothered to speak with the only two people on the planet who both saw and destroyed the picture, as I did decades ago, he'd know that the picture was definitely one of the BY photos we're all familiar with. Marguerite, especially, was very knowledgeable about the BY photos and wanted desperately to find some proof her son was innocent. But as she explained to me in the late 70s, the picture location was the same as the other BY poses. Unless, of course, Marguerite and Marina were part of the dastardly evil plotters' cabal. Here is Oswald's 201 file [and also see the photo at the bottom of this post] with a report mentioning Brown, Fritz and others taking the re-creation pictures at 214 Neely and there's a 1992 Now It Can Be Told show in which Brown appears on camera telling what he did and why. I've got a tape of it somewhere, but maybe you have it too. Brown is the person IN the picture re-creating 133-C, so obviously he and perhaps other DPD people knew about it in 1963. And it seems to me, in addition to a report on KDFW-TV here, there was a newspaper story about Brown and the photos, for they were a news item in the JFK movie days and the release of Dallas Police docs by the city. At the time, Brown was living in Oklahoma but he's since passed away. Gary I'm not interested in what Gary Mack says Marguerite told him. Perhaps I could say that she told me otherwise. A photo showing Oswald holding the rifle above his head at Nealy Street, would be the fourth photo. That what you are you saying this is so?