Ray Mitcham

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.

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

Corrected for perspective

Note Oswald's head is outside the vertical line of his right foot. (He must have been a circus performer.)

Ray,

If the man in the re-creation photo were to slide his thumb down just a little more, the thumb would almost touch his fingertips too. (The thumb IS a movable object, you know.)

And what about those so-called "fake" shadows that CTers love so much? Any comment on those?

If the man were to slide his thumb down a little more he still wouldn't get anywhere near touching his fingers as does Oswald in the photo.

Compare the shadows in CE133A and CE133B.

Nice try, David. The thumb in the Oswald photo almost touch his fingertips. Not so in the reconstruction.

Bob,

I'm not entirely sure that the "left thumb" is really a thumb at all in the backyard photo. It could be a situation similar in some respects to the alleged "sling mount" -- i.e., perhaps it's part of the lighter-colored background being seen through Oswald's left armpit.

It is his thumb or he has a hole in his side.

I'll perform one of my patented ~shrugs~ here, because I really can't tell what the "thumb" is.

"Shrug": Is that the best you can do?

But let me add this.....

If it IS the "left thumb" of a person (and it might very well be), then it is unquestionably (at least IMO) the left thumb of Lee Harvey Oswald. And, therefore, Oswald must be holding the rifle in such a manner that has enabled his left thumb to wrap itself around the barrel of the gun in just the manner seen in the photograph.

No "must be" at all. only in your world "must it be'

This could be another situation when examining photographs when something just doesn't look quite right due to the angles involved or the quality of the photo itself, etc. It seems to me that a whole array of legitimate possibilities could conceivably exist to logically explain what appears to be an "eight-inch thumb" on the left hand of Lee Harvey Oswald in that picture without having to resort to the CTers' favorite alternative of "photo fakery".

I would love anybody to explain such a long thumb

And I'll remind everyone here, that neither I nor Robert Prudhomme are "photo experts". (Are you qualified to be labelled as such, Bob? I know I am not. And I'm doubting you qualify either.)

And I'll also remind everyone reading this of what the HSCA determined in 1978 (and they were looking at the ORIGINAL photographs, which had even better resolution and clarity than the pictures we have seen on the Internet)....

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146

Absence of evidence does not mean absence of evidence"

And, for good measure, I'll add this excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book....

"[Fort Worth lawyer and friend of Bugliosi's] Jack Duffy, who has studied the assassination for years and leans toward the conspiracy theory, asked Marina if she had taken "the backyard photos" of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did." "That settles that issue," Duffy said." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History"

Anything written by the Bug needs to be taken with a double dose of salt.

And let me also ask you this, Bob Prudhomme....

Do you think that a REAL PERSON is standing there in the Neely Street backyard and was posing for a series of phony backyard pictures?

As I speculated earlier, it's my guess now that you DON'T think the "person" with the weird (alleged) thumb is a real flesh-and-bone human being. Is that correct?

I asked if you believe in Santa Claus because it seems as though you believe the fairy tale written by the Grim Brothers, Specter and Dulles.

What mathematics were needed to observe that the wound was 45 to 60 degrees downwards?

Well, he'd have to know the difference between 17 degrees and "45 to 60 degrees". And, quite obviously, Humes didn't.

Plus, the mere fact that Humes' guesstimate included a huge, wide range of angles -- from 45 to 60 degrees (that's a pretty big range of angles) -- suggests that Dr. Humes really wasn't sure at all about the angle of declination of the bullet through JFK's upper back.

It would have been better if Humes hadn't guessed about the angle at all. Because a "45 to 60 degree" guesstimate is not worth very much.

If Humes made a "wild guess"[,] what other wild guesses did he make during the autopsy?

The position of the head wound?

Good thing we have photos to prove Humes was wrong on that one, huh?

The direction of the throat wound?

That was a "guess" on Humes' behalf, true. But, as mentioned, it's the only possible REASONABLE guess given the 5 variables I laid out in Post 211 above.

Do you believe in Santa Claus, as well, David?

You're right, Ray, that fictional "45 to 60 degrees" business IS silly. Where could that gunman have been located to achieve that steep of an angle? In a 707 that just departed Love Field? ~shrug~

The key to knowing the "45 degree" stuff was just a totally WILD guess on Humes' part is this testimony from Dr. Humes.....

"Mathematics is not my forte." -- J.J. Humes; 1964

O'Neill/Sibert report

"This opening was probed by Dr Humes with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of he missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees."

What mathematics were needed to observe that the wound was 45 to 6o degrees downwards?

If Humes made a "wild guess" what other wild guesses did he make during the autopsy?

The position of the head wound?

The direction of the throat wound?

Humes was using ordinary common sense, David. He knew there were no bullets in JFK's body. And after he talked to Dr. Perry, he confirmed that the trach masked a bullet hole. Given these facts, should Humes have written this in the autopsy report?....

Two bullets entered the upper body of the President, one in the upper back and one entered the throat. Neither of these bullets caused much damage at all, and both missiles have disappeared without a trace.

Sounds mighty silly, doesn't it? (It sure does. And is.)

Not quite a silly as "the bullet entered the President's back at the third vertebra, at a downward angle of 45/60 degrees, and exited his throat, whereupon it hit Governor Connally in the back.

Let's handle the odds against two defective rounds this way. The back wound was a defective round. The throat wound was caused by a paralyzing, dissolving fletchette from an umbrella gun. (Remember that such a gun existed at the time, and we know that the umbrella man was playing some kind of game with his umbrella.)

Right church, wrong pew.

The Umbrella man was standing too far to JFK's right to account for the slightly left-to-right trajectory of the throat shot.

JFK's head was turned to the right circa Z190, with a laceration on the right side of the trachea, broken blood vessels, a hairline fracture of the T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying the right T1 and C7 transverse processes.

And almost straight-on shot, slightly left to right.

Fits Black Dog Man to a tee, perhaps with one of these, developed by the same folks who developed the umbrella weapon.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

A shot from the drain opening on the North side of Elm Street would suit your proposed trajectory.

Bob, Did you read what Paul O'Connor said to William Matson Law,about the back wound?

Paul O’Connor

O'Connor: “Dr. Finck had come over from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Walter Reed Army Hospital. He was a forensic pathologist and he strongly objected to Commander Humes doing what he did. He took a sound. Now a sound is a probe, a metal malleable, non-rigid probe. Malleable means you can move it hack and forth and bend it a little bit and trace a bullet path through the body. Now, there are high-powered weapons that will drive a bullet straight through a body and a rigid probe will trace its path all the way through. We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal muscles - the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other side of the body.”

Law: “You can be reasonably sure of that?”

O'Connor: “Absolutely.”

Law: “It was just from the probe then?”

O'Connor: “Oh yes.”

Law: “And these doctors knew that?”

O'Connor: “Absolutely.”

Comparison of ideas about back/neck wound.

A---- For the Back wound

• The death certificate signed by Dr George Burkley, the President's personal doctor, who was present both in the emergency room at the hospital in Dallas and at the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland, located the back wound “at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra,” which is typically four to six inches, or 10 to 15 centimetres, below the top of the shirt collar.

• The only surviving contemporary report of the autopsy supported this location.

• The autopsy descriptive sheet, made by one of the pathologists during the autopsy, was the official diagram of the wounds to the body. It, too, placed the back wound in this location.

• The backs of Kennedy’s jacket and shirt each contained a bullet hole located between five and six inches below the top of the collar, which matched this location. Although the jacket had bunched up slightly from time to time during the motorcade as Kennedy waved to the crowd, it had never bunched up sufficiently to allow a bullet to enter at the required angle. In a photograph taken no more than 1.2 seconds before any non–fatal shot from the sixth floor could have been fired, the jacket can clearly be seen to be at or very close to its normal position. Buttoned–up shirts tend to be much less flexible than jackets. President Kennedy’s shirt in particular could not have bunched up significantly: it had been made to measure; it was held in place by a belt; it had a long tail, on which Kennedy was sitting; and the hot weather would have caused the shirt to stick to the president’s back. The hole in the shirt lined up almost exactly with the hole in the jacket.

Special Agent Glen Bennett rode in the Secret Service follow-up car on 11-22-63: "I saw a shot hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder".

Sibert and O'Neill FBI report.

The FBI agents’ account contains several observations about the location, angle and depth of President Kennedy’s back wound which, if accurate, would invalidate the Warren Commission’s single–bullet theory:

• The bullet wound “was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column,” a location consistent with the bullet holes in the president’s shirt and jacket but too low to be consistent with the single–bullet theory.
• “This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees.” A bullet entering at a downward angle could not have come out through the throat, as the single–bullet theory demanded.
• “Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.” It became known several years later that the pathologists had been forbidden, presumably by one or more of their military superiors, to dissect the back and throat wounds (see Clay Shaw Trial Transcript, pp.115–8). Such dissection would almost certainly have confirmed or denied the possibility that a single bullet had passed through President Kennedy’s body and had caused both wounds.

B ----For the Neck wound.

Specter's theory.

Dubious autopsy photos.

You make your choice.

Ray, I would have hoped you knew better than to pull a stunt like this. Try again with the lines actually at the same level.

Let me help you out, Ray. having the lines at the top and bottom of the ear doesn't work because the heads are tilted at slightly different angles.

So you say.

If they are the same guy, perhaps you can explain the different chins.

The only time the jacket and the shirt moved up sufficiently for the bullet to enter via the President's neck was when Specter decided that was what had happened, to suit his proposition. Prior to that the bullet entered the back of JFK at or about the third thoracic vertebra.

All the rest is bull.

Thought provoking stuff courtesy of ROKC. If this doesn't arouse curiosity, I don't know what would. We can only hope we'll have better scans of the Darnell and Wiegman films someday soon.

Thought provoking stuff courtesy of ROKC. If this doesn't arouse curiosity, I don't know what would. We can only hope we'll have better scans of the Darnell and Wiegman films someday soon.

Thanks for posting that Mr Sorensen. It’s good to know we can count on your sensible approach to get us back on track when we wander off it. Apologies for the levity on here and that poor taste joke btw I hope it didn’t offend you.

These floating heads of Oswald are remarkable. I think the one on the left is the most similar except that PM has his head turned more sharply to his left. In fact it looks to me like PM and BWF are looking at each other and maybe, even talking to each other.

Bump.

Photo of the two mentioned by Steven above.

I agree with you, Ian. Lovelady is standing to the left as we look at it and then moves to the right. He then leans out further as the limo moves further down Elm Street. At this point we see him leaning in Altgens6.

Great post, Bart. We await the comments of the Zapruder believers.

Stan Dane posted this over at ROKC a few weeks ago. It shows how the "Frankenstein" Oswald doesn't fit with other images of Lee Harvey Oswald. And I think he also did a nice job of showing how the various images of Oswald do fit together, meaning they are of the same person.

Playing around with this a little more. (Had to postpone my exit today, but I'm being careful!) I added two more pictures to the mix, #1 & #2.

Using the same approach (distance between pupils as a sizing reference) I note that #2 – #5 match up very well. (We need to keep in mind these are just images taken off the Internet and for all we know, they could have been tweaked with themselves.) I added #1 (the Jack White "Frankenstein") because we've had discussions in that past on how unnatural this image looks and how it was inserted by White to bolster the Harvey & Lee fiction. I added #2 for another data point.

If #1 is an image of Lee Oswald, it is a distorted one. The shape/appearance of the ears in #2 – #5 look the same to me, but the ears in #1 do not (besides being much wider apart). The mouth is wider in #1 too (but that might be because he is smiling). #1 clearly doesn't fit with the rest.

Bottom line: #1 was consciously inserted in place of the original one in the news article. We know why.

Thanks for reminding me about's Stan's work on this.

Two different guys to me.

Look at the ear levels. (And the different chins.)

My comments in red.

You just don't get it, do you, Dave[?] Connallly [sic] actually felt the shot hit him[,] so he should know when it did. He heard the shots and thought they came from behind him. Vast difference[,] but then you wouldn't understand that as it [doesn't] fit your scenario.

You must be joking this time, Ray. The things you mentioned above regarding Governor Connally fit the "Lone Assassin" and "SBT" scenarios beautifully. In fact, it's perfect.

Everything John Connally has said over the years regarding the things he had first-hand knowledge of has been perfectly consistent with the Single-Bullet Theory and the overall "Oswald Did All The Shooting From The Sixth Floor Of The Book Depository" scenario.

Connally was hit in the back by the shot that was directly IN-BETWEEN the two shots he heard coming from "back over my right shoulder".

Ergo, the shot he felt hit him (but did not hear) obviously ALSO had to have come from the same general direction as the two shots he did hear---i.e., from behind him.

No " ergo" about it. It is your assumption.

There's nothing inconsistent or unbelievable about any of Connally's testimony whatsoever. And it fits the SBT to a tee.

As for JBC's belief that he and JFK were struck by different bullets --- that belief almost certainly stemmed in large part from his wife's belief that JFK reacted first and then JBC reacted after Kennedy.

"almost certainly stemmed in large part......" Again, totally your assumption.

But Nellie certainly wasn't aware of all of these ultra-fast reactions that took place an instant after Z224. No way she saw all this flinching and lapel movement and grimacing and arm raising and tie displacement. What Nellie saw, instead, were her husband's SECONDARY and VOLUNTARY reactions, which began just a short time later. And in her mind, she thought the reactions of the two victims were separated by a lengthier period of time than they really were. And who could blame her? I think any of us probably would have thought the same thing Nellie thought, given the circumstances.

"And in her mind......" Are you serious? How do you know what was in her mind? Did she tell you? Do you write crime fiction by any chance?

But if I had a chance to show the late Mrs. Connally and the late Governor Connally the in-motion GIF clips presented below, I'm confident that I could make SBT believers out of both of them in less than 15 minutes....

Mark Knight, of course, will just ignore the fact that John Connally's "ALL OF THE SHOTS CAME FROM BACK OVER MY RIGHT SHOULDER" testimony is buttressed by all of the physical evidence that was found in a building that was located BACK OVER CONNALLY'S RIGHT SHOULDER.

Funny coincidence there, huh?

You just don't get it, do you, Dave. Connallly actually felt the shot hit him so he should know when it did. He heard the shots and thought they came from behind him. Vast difference but then you wouldn't understand that as it does't fit your scenario.

So you believe some of what Connally says but not all? 'Cos it doesn't suit your theory. Got it!

And by that, can I assume that you DO believe ALL of John Connally's testimony and statements? Including this statement?....

"All of the shots came from the same place--from back over my right shoulder. They weren't in front of us. They weren't at the side of us. There were no sounds like that emanating from those directions." -- John Connally; 1967; CBS-TV

Nice dodge, Dave. So you agree that he was right when he said he wasn't hit by the first shot. He knew when he was shot, but, as far as where the shots came from, how would he know?

This frame 270 shows Connally turning round to look at JFK. David, do you really think he did this nearly three seconds after being shot in the back?

What makes you think Connally should have instantly collapsed into a heap in the car after he was shot?

I know that there have been some conspiracists over the years who have advocated the notion that John Connally was not hit by ANY bullet until AFTER President Kennedy was shot in the head. But it's fairly obvious (to me) that when looking at the Zapruder Film in motion, Connally has been injured well prior to Z313. It's very clear (to me) that he is exhibiting a considerable amount of distress just after Z-Film frame 224 and in the frames that immediately follow....

Plus, we know from Governor Connally's own testimony and his many public interviews after the assassination (three of which can be found below) that he didn't say "My God, they're going to kill us all" until AFTER he was hit by the bullet....

"I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all"." -- John Connally; 1964 WC Testimony

"Then I said right after I was hit, I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all"." -- John Connally; 1978 HSCA Testimony

And we can easily see in the above Z-Film excerpt that Mr. Connally's mouth is moving and he is most certainly SAYING SOMETHING as he turns around in his seat.

Now, conspiracy theorists can always argue that we really can't KNOW for a fact WHAT the Texas Governor was uttering as we see his mouth moving in the above pre-Z313 frames, but that argument is not a very strong one in light of the testimony of both John and Nellie Connally, who testified that the ONLY words being uttered by the Governor immediately after he was shot were "Oh, no, no, no" and "My God, they're going to kill us all".

Perhaps what we need is a really good lip reader to examine the Zapruder Film to nail down exactly what words Governor Connally is saying in the silent film.

Plus, the theory about Connally not being hit by a bullet until after the JFK head shot is defeated by the additional testimony of John Connally, who always said the third shot (the head shot to JFK) occurred AFTER Connally himself had already been hit. That fact is very plain whenever listening to Mr. Connally recount the events of 11/22/63.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7UZlseF-KY

ALSO SEE:

jfkassassinationforum.com/topic12298.msg383527

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html

So you believe some of what Connally says but not all? 'Cos it doesn't suit your theory. Got it!

As I have said in previous posts, if pigeons were on the roof of the TSBD, they would have flown away no matter where the shots came from, not just from the building under them.

Having chased pigeons many times, many years ago, these dumb birds fly off at any loud noise, from wherever. Any cop with a normal degree of intelligence would realise that.

As David says, the statement sounds totally made up to cover the real reason for entrance to the TSBD by Baker.

This frame 270 shows Connally turning round to look at JFK. David, do you really think he did this nearly three seconds after being shot in the back?

Bump for DVP.

Just found out that DVP has had his posting rights stopped by the management.

bump for DVP