Ray Mitcham

I'm afraid millimeters count when you are talking about bullet wounds.

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'm afraid millimeters count when you are talking about bullet wounds.

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.

Ray,

The bullet didn't exit above the tie. We know that for a fact by the damage to JFK's shirt and tie. It exited right AT the level of the tie knot. Dr. Carrico was obviously off a little bit in his calculations of where the bullet hole was located.

Please explain how a bullet can make "slits" in a shirt rather bullet holes, and in places which don't line up. Carrico was quite right. (See below)

Also....

The Warren Commission's re-enactment shows the general path the bullet took on Nov. 22. It's not 100% exact. It CAN'T be, as I explained, because CE903 represents only an AVERAGE angle between the range of frames the WC used for the SBT (Z210-225). The WC couldn't pinpoint the exact Z-Film frame when the bullet struck. So they used an average angle between Z210 and 225.

That isn't nearly good enouigh for you, though, is it, Ray? You require so much more.

I require evidence e- not "what's a few millimetres difference"

But what I'd like to see is some kind of CTer re-enactment to show the feasibility of TWO bullets going into JFK's body, striking no bones, and then both bullets getting lost.

It's no wonder we never see any kind of goofy re-creation like that. I'd be embarrassed to present it at COPA or the NID conference too.

It's the theory which is goofy, David.

You're kidding, aren't you Ray? That yellow line you drew in there is STILL very close to meeting the SBT requirements. (Looks mighty close to me anyway.)

"Looks mighty close" Arf! It couldn't have hit Connally in the armpit at that angle and it would have hit him in the heart.

But, as I said above, will ANY CTer ever accept anything that isn't 100% spot-on and to-the-millimeter when it comes to any of the attempts to replicate the Single-Bullet Theory?

Will any LNer ever accept that the single bullet theory is a load of rubbish?

Do conspiracy believers ever allow for any "margin of error" when evaluating the work of the Warren Commission, or the 2004 Australian team of researchers, or Dale Myers, or Gary Mack, or ANYBODY else when discussing the details of the Single-Bullet Theory? If not, why not? We all know that it's not very likely that anyone could ever duplicate the SBT shot right down to the last little detail (and to the millimeter). Seems to me that CTers expect way too much of the people doing any SBT re-enactments.

I'm afraid millimeters count when you are talking about bullet wounds.

I note you have no comment to make about the bullet wound being above the tie.

And with respect to the Warren Commission's 5/24/64 re-enactment of the SBT in Dallas, CTers are also expecting way too much exactitude and pinpoint accuracy from the WC too. As I explained in this article, a little bit of leeway MUST be granted the WC when evaluating the re-created bullet trajectory we see in CE903. Because that picture actually equates to the bullet hitting President Kennedy at Zapruder Film frame 217.5. And is there a person alive who REALLY thinks the bullet hit at precisely Z217.50? I doubt it. I certainly don't.

So you agree that the re-enactment was useless?

Keep pushing, David. I doubt the string will eventually move.

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.)

). He had super vision. (Or should I say supervision?)

Absolutely nailed it, Ron. Brilliant comment.

right, but i read someone saying that he is seen to look right suddenly on the "first" shot - not right and UP, just right.

seems to me that with the proven unreliability of eye-witness testimony over the years, that even if he did get a good look at someone on 6, it'd be too vague to know for certain later, similar description or not. too many eye-witnesses have SWORN that soandso was the culprit, only to be proven mistaken later. or eyes and MINDS do funny things under duress.

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

You would be amazed at what they have on file, Ray.

Glad to see you are keeping a collection of my postings, David.

I'm flattered.

What do you mean, David? These videos are riddled with information to suggest a conspiracy.

"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

Quoting directly from the Edgewood report:

"Experiments were performed with the 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano assassination rifle, serial no. C2766, and 6.5-mm Western Cartridge Company, lot WCC 6000, Mannlicher-Carcano ball ammunition to reproduce the conditions occurring at the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on 22 November 1963. The results indicated that the wounds sustained by the President and by Governor Connally, including the massive head wound of the President, could be produced by the above type of bullet and rifle." -- From the Edgewood Arsensal Report, Page 3

"Could be".

Enough said.

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?

oh - THAT Tom Wilson. I'll look forward to reading it. I've heard about his work - i cannot but help think that there HAS to be a technology available to better clear up some of the ancient photography we have - somewhere!!!

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.

The Edgewood Arsenal "Wound Ballistics Of 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition" report is very interesting reading. More conspiracy theorists should look at it. Here it is.

Every single test performed between April 1964 and October 1964 by Dr. Olivier and Dr. Dziemian at Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland is consistent with the Warren Commission's ultimate conclusions.

I.E.:

Per the Edgewood Arsenal ballistics tests with Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle, that exact rifle was capable of causing all of the wounds that were inflicted on President Kennedy and Governor Connally on 11/22/63.

Quoting directly from the Edgewood report:

"Experiments were performed with the 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano assassination rifle, serial no. C2766, and 6.5-mm Western Cartridge Company, lot WCC 6000, Mannlicher-Carcano ball ammunition to reproduce the conditions occurring at the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on 22 November 1963. The results indicated that the wounds sustained by the President and by Governor Connally, including the massive head wound of the President, could be produced by the above type of bullet and rifle." -- From the Edgewood Arsensal Report, Page 3

"Could be".

Enough said.

Everyone, it's with great alacrity and relief that I announce my decision to leave the closet of shame and denial, and, in the face of overwhelming evidence, embrace the Truth of The Church of The Lone Gunman, whose members have welcomed me as only the desperate can.

I cannot confidently say what it is that led me to this decision, other than my utter inability to find anything that even suggests someone other than Oswald was capable of this crime and its orchestration; that and the advice of a certain SAGE of the Dark Side (the dreaded CTers!) who encouraged me in no uncertain terms that I'd do better at the Church.

So farewell, reasonable people!! Ta Ta, Logic! I shall go, and ONLY read Posner and Bugliosi! And the Enquirer!

and this lamp... and this chair...

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.

terrific, Mr. Mitcham - i've been looking for stuff like this for my own information.

so what Mr. Von Pein is implying is that Horne is simply imagining that this interview took place? or maybe he made it up...?

ok. i can see the need to believe that...

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.

Perhaps you should concentrate on improving your reasoning skills.

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.

The pose of Oswald holding the rifle above his head was taken in Russia, when he was hunting. His hosts said he was a lousy shot.

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?

David J.,

The main point regarding the backyard photos, which you will forever ignore, is that Marina Oswald Porter has always and forever said that she took SOME PICTURES of Lee Oswald in the Neely backyard.

What difference does it make HOW MANY she took? Or if she remembers exactly how many she took? The key is --- she remembers taking pictures in the Neely backyard of Lee wearing all black and holding guns.

Why do you insist on calling this woman named Marina a bald-faced xxxx, David? Why?

And Marguerite must have been a xxxx too, right David? Because Marguerite told the Warren Commission that she flushed one of the backyard pictures down the toilet in her hotel room on Nov. 23rd....

J. LEE RANKIN -- "Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?"

MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine's home. She said--I testified before "Mamma, you keep picture." And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture. She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet."

--------------

Face it, fellows, those backyard pictures are real and genuine and they were taken in the Neely Street backyard in the spring of 1963, just exactly as Marina Oswald has always maintained.

Conspiracy theorists should (once again) make at least a tiny effort to discard some of the perpetual myths that have surrounded the JFK case for five decades now. And the notion that the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald are fake photos (regardless of how many photos Marina took) is one of those myths.

The photo Marguerite flushed down the toilet was a photo taken on a hunting trip in Russia., where he held shotgun above his head. (The trip where his hosts said he was a lousy shot.)

Now explain why she said she held the camera up to her eye when it was reflex camera.

On second thoughts don't bother as you will say she must have been mistaken as she was when she first said she took one photo, then two.

And you believe her? !!!

http://www32.zippyshare.com/v/DjZSlsUk/file.html

http://www55.zippyshare.com/v/rhKlLbNO/file.html

chris

Brilliant gifs, Chris. Now let's see what DVP says.

The pose of Oswald holding the rifle above his head was taken in Russia, when he was hunting. His hosts said he was a lousy shot.

The CBS/Schiller photo you posted failed dismally at this, and only proved to everyone how impossible this pose is. That man had to keep his legs vertical, and bend at the hip.

What a crock of crackpottery you continue to post. The CBS/Schiller man has almost perfectly duplicated Oswald's posture. Very little difference whatsoever. You're seeing (and imagining) things---yet again. Nothing new there, of course.

Some day, DVP's funding will dry up, and we will finally get the last word in.

Another example of Bob P.'s vivid imagination working on all eight cylinders. Nice, Bobby.

Quote by DVP (David von Braincell?)

"What a crock of crackpottery you continue to post. The CBS/Schiller man has almost perfectly duplicated Oswald's posture. Very little difference whatsoever. You're seeing (and imagining) things---yet again. Nothing new there, of course."

The CBS Schillerman pose is nothing like the supposedly pose of Oswald. As Bob said, Schillerman bends his body at his hips whilst keeping his legs vertical. All we ask, David, is for you to strike the same pose as Oswald , film it and let us laugh when you fall over.

I pass no comment on the funding issue.

So, Ray, I guess this means you also think that NOBODY is really standing there in the Neely backyard, right? The ENTIRE BODY of the man has been drawn in or added to the Neely background. Is that it?

And, for some silly reason, the photo fakers decided to draw in a man whose posture is IMPOSSIBLE (according to CTers anyway). Correct?

And these same photo manipulators also thought it would be a really good idea to paint in a thumb on the fake "person" that was way too long. Right? (But what for, pray tell?)

Those photo fakers were sure a bunch of screw-ups, weren't they? (Or was it just one goofy guy painting in all of the "impossible" things in the pics?)

That explains why he is standing in an impossible position. Well done, Dave.

There's that word again --- "impossible".

You have no idea that such a pose is "impossible", Ray. And it obviously wasn't "impossible", because we can see Oswald standing in such a posture in the photos. And the photos are verified as real by the person who took them --- Marina Oswald.

Try again, Ray. The "impossible" thing is getting old.

Try it yourself, David. Please remember to film it as it will make a great laugh when you fall on your butt.

Remember these photos were made for an unsophisticated audience, who never had the tools to examine them they way we can now.

Yeah, right. Like the man's basic posture is something NOBODY could "examine" back in '63, right?

It's called sleight of hand. They didn't expect the photos to be examined minutely.

So, again Ray, how were the fake photos made? Do you think a real person stood in the backyard or not? (Apparently not.)

I wasn't here so I don't know. Neither were you.

So they got a picture of an empty backyard and then they drew in an Oswald-like body and then pasted on a real Oswald head? Is that how it was done?

See above answer

And they wanted to make sure to leave you CT buffs lots of crumbs and they wanted to make it much more likely their fakery would be discovered, so they decided to fake THREE or FOUR separate pictures, even though they all show the very same thing ("Oswald" with guns). Right?

They thought it was a slam dunk case. they weren't worried about anybody checking their work.

And what about Marina saying she took the pictures of Lee while he was carrying guns and dressed all in black? All lies?

Which photos,David, The one she took first? Oh then she said she took two, Oops then she said she took three.All with the Imperial held up to her eyes.

At what point does this BYP insanity end, Ray?

No you tell me, David. You should be the one to say.. Hallejujah! It's in the good book!.

Thanks for the morning laugh, DVP, I've heard that now the whole JFK shooting is a conspiracy myth, that's he's still alive and living in Indiana. Is that right?

David is like a fundamental churchgoer. He believes in the good book (in his case the WC report) and no matter what anybody proves, it's wrong because it isn't in the Book Hallelujah!.