Ray Mitcham

John Mytton says I'm a Neanderthal.

An Australian calling somebody a Neanderthal? Oh, the irony!

DVP shut down? I hadn't heard this yet.

Here's the news, Bob.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12298.0.html

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.

Mr. Lifton,

I believe you are confusing the "controversy" over Altgen 6 with the more-recent discussion on this very forum on the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD" thread. It's pretty much accepted that Oswald is NOT seen in Altgens 6. But there are other films that show another man in the corner BEHIND Lovelady, who is not visible in Altgens 6, who may--or may not--be Oswald.

Check out the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD" thread and educate yourself on the issue. You may or may not believe it's Oswald back in the corner. But it's also not Lovelady, who IS the man seen in Altgens 6.

Mark,

Yes, I am aware of that thread, primarily because I am interested in the Darnell film, and because those exhibits show Officer Baker running towards the building and the steps into the building, while the focus of everyone else appears to be "down the street."

Many people are unaware that although Baker came up with an explanation that he ran into the building because he saw pigeons flying off the roof, that was not his "first day" explanation; in the very first draft of his statement, he said something to the effect (this is from memory) that he "thought" the shots came from an upstairs window, and that was his "explanation."

As to the image over on the left hand side, I realize there's an image there--and yes, I have looked at it--but its very indistinct, and certainly not of the quality necessary to make an identification. I notice that most of the posts on that thread do not cite the image in isolation, but rather as part of a wider argument using a process of elimination as to who it might be at that particular location.

It has always been my belief that if Oswald was downstairs anywhere on those steps (or near it) at the time, other employees would have mentioned seeing him there. There are no such reports. The only such "early" reports concern him being (possibly) in a nearby storage room, a minute or two following the shooting; and those reports are (historically and legally) far more important (and potent). As I recall, they were not properly followed up by the FBI investigation (or the Warren Commission, for that matter).

DSL

5/14/15 - 4 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

An obvious explanation for all the interest "down the street" while Baker or some other policeman is running towards the TSBD front door: that's where JFK's limo was when the shots rang out and people hit the ground and others started yelling or screaming. Due to the confusing acoustics of Dealy Plaza, most who realized that Kennedy had been shot (or shot at) would have naturally assumed that the shooter was down there somewhere, too.

--Tommy

Sorry, Tommy, but the shots rang out after the limo had passed the TSBD.

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?

When you've stopped laughing, could you provide a viable alternative 'common sense' explanation?

This is really getting weird. How about "more than one shooter"?

And those multiple shooters fired separate bullets into JFK's upper back and throat----with neither bullet exiting the other side of his body??

Now THAT'S weird, Ray.

I think you meant Ron, David

Never mind, it won't be the first mistake you've ever made.

You don't need a tape measure to see that a wound is above a tie.

Why rely on Carrico at all? Just look at the autopsy photos. They show where the wound/trach is located---very LOW in the front of the neck....

And that throat wound is totally consistent with the back wound and with the SBT....

p.s. you never explained how a bullet could cause two slits in a shirt, and in places that don't match the overlap.

Well, Ray, what are you suggesting then? Are you saying that there were TWO bullets that caused the two slits in the shirt? Is that it? But if so, where's the second bullet hole in the throat?

~shrug~

Straw man, David. Explain how a bullet can cause slits.

Should be easy for man of your caliber.

The Black Knight starring DVP defending the Warren Report

Big deal, Ray.

It's not like Carrico ran up to JFK's throat wound with a tape measure during those critical moments when the doctors were trying desperately to save the President's life.

You don't need a tape measure to see that a wound is above a tie.

p.s. you never explained how a bullet could cause two slits in a shirt, and in places that don't match the overlap.

Keep pushing.

Pehaps DVP, would care to comment on Dr Carrico's words.

"The throat wound was located just below the Adam's apple and just above the knot of the tie.

Dr Carrico, who saw Kennedy's throat wound before it was distorted during a tracheotomy and before the President's shirt and tie were roomed, was asked to point to his own throat. His questioner clarified the location for the record.

Mr Dulles: And you put your hand right above where your tie is?

Dr Carrico: Yes, sir.

...Clothing fibers pointing OUTWARD in the front of the shirt. (I'd love to hear a reasonable excuse from the CTers to explain this one. And if the word "fake" could be avoided, it would be refreshing.)

Bullet hole in the back of JFK's jacket.

Bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt.

Slits (that don't match) on the front of JFK's shirt.

Bullet hole in the back of Connally's jacket

Bullet hole in the back of Connally's shirt.

Bullet hole in the front of Connally's shirt

Bullet hole int hef font of Connally's jacket.

Notice the odd one out, David. How does a bullet make slits (which don't line up)?

Ray,

You surely aren't saying that you think Connally was NOT seated somewhat "inboard" of JFK, are you?

The "inboard" status of Connally's position in the limo throughout the entire Dallas motorcade has been illustrated in many photographs, such as the two below....

Both the photos you present show JFK turning to his left, i.e. leaning to his right, particularly the large photo, which exaggerates the appearance of Connally being well inboard of JFK.

Compare your photo with the mine shown above.

The Zapruder Film provides a good answer to your last question, Ray.

SOME MORE SBT TALK:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-941.html

A silent movie doesn't show anybody saying anything.

By the way, how does Myers cartoon

compare to an actual photo of the limo?

[url=http://s46.photobucket.com/user/Fourbrick/media/JFK-in-Dallas2_zpsfe6695cd.png.html][/u

Note how the right shoulders of JFK and Connally and Kellerman all line up.

I don't think Roy Kellerman was a "xxxx". He was wrong (i.e., "mistaken"), but not a xxxx.

IMO, Kellerman heard Governor Connally shouting "My God, they're going to kill us all".

I know that Connally didn't have the Boston accent that JFK had, but given the fact the zero other people in the car heard JFK utter a word, and since we know that Gov. Connally DID utter the above words (including two of the words Kellerman claimed he heard JFK say--"My God"), well, in my view, the answer is that Kellerman must have heard Connally and not Kennedy.

How soon after the shot that hit JFK in the throat, did Connally say "My God they're going to kill us all" ?

In his WC testimony, Barnett says this.

"So since this was the only fire escape and there were officers down here watching the this back door, I returned back around to the front to watch the front of the building and the fire escape. "

​Who were the officers watching the back door?

Couldn't have been the cops on the railroad tracks they were too far away to be watching the back door.

One question about the BOH photo.

Where did JFK's long hair go?

Those idiotic plotters are at it again, aren't they Bob? They decided to give JFK a haircut when they "faked" all of the autopsy pictures. Oops!

And they left the Mauser on the sixth floor (even though they were trying to frame their patsy with a Carcano). Oops again!

And then they screwed up the paper trail for Oswald's rifle purchase, making it look like he bought a 36-inch gun instead of the 40-incher that the plotters used to frame their one and only patsy with. Another oops!

"They" can't get anything right, can they? Remind me to never hire those boobs the next time I want to cover up a Presidential assassination.

As JFK himself said in the 7/25/63 phone call below (referring to the "silly bastard" in the accompanying picture)....

"I wouldn't have him running a cathouse!"

I feel the same way about the stumblebums who the conspiracy theorists assure me were responsible for engineering and/or covering up your death, Mr. President.

Translation of above post.

"I haven't got a clue, so I'll change the subject."

"The evidence indicates.." Really?

""In 1997, the review board found and interviewed Saundra K. Spencer, who worked at the Naval Photographic Center in 1963. She was shown the autopsy photographs in the National Archives and found that they were NOT the photographs that she had processed.

""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.

"In 1997, the review board found and interviewed Saundra K. Spencer, who worked at the Naval Photographic Center in 1963. She was shown the autopsy photographs in the National Archives and found that they were not the photographs that she had processed.

The pictures that she developed and printed had, "no blood or opening cavities." she stated.

The film was brought in by an agent she believed was with the FBI. "When he gave us the material to process, he said that they had been shot at Bethesda and they were autopsy pictures."

She was told, she said: "Process them and try not to observe too much, don't peruse."

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

Robert Knudsen's widow, Gloria, revealed to the review board that her husband told her that photographing the dead president was "the hardest thing he had ever had to do in his life."

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.

The House Assassinations Committee suppressed Mr. Knudsen's testimony.

Oops!

Just a minute here, Ray....

I just talked about seeing a high-quality "back of the head" autopsy photo which positively depicts EACH HAIR on the President's head.

So are you now suggesting that some photo-fakers "blacked out" just ONE photo, but left the other photos alone?

Or, as I asked previously, do you think the evil plotters and cover-uppers decided to DRAW IN the hairs that I can see on the back of JFK's head in that HQ pic I talked about before?

Which is it? Or would you rather not talk about such silliness? (I couldn't blame you. Because what you seem to be suggesting is awfully silly.)

Prove any of the photos are genuine. Should be easy.

Ray,

In 2009, researcher John Fiorentino sent me a digital copy of a very high-quality version of one of the autopsy photos showing the back of JFK's head. It's the B&W equivalent to the color "red spot" picture seen below. And that photo which was sent to me by Fiorentino clearly shows each and every hair on the back of President Kennedy's head. There is a version of the B&W photo that I am referring to on the Internet right now, but the version John sent me appears to be a better one, displaying higher resolution and greater detail.

So, Ray, do you want to suggest that somebody PAINTED IN the individual hairs on JFK's head in that picture that I currently have on my computer's hard drive? (BTW, I would post a picture of it right here on this forum, but I promised John Fiorentino that I would not post that photo anywhere on the Internet. Where John got the picture from, I cannot remember. But the slightly lower-quality version of that B&W pic also seems to show some of the individual hairs on JFK's head in the occipital area too.)

That's a different photo, David.

Mind discussing what colored the back of the head of the photo I posted?

Photos can't be altered can they, David?

They can't be faked, can they, David?

They can't be substituted , can they, David.

I prefer evidence from people who were there and physical evidence which can't be denied.

Seems you are desperate to support the Warren Commission. Best of luck.

What you got, David?

I've got the best evidence of all, which is evidence that forever trumps any and all witnesses --- this photograph that you apparently want to ignore....

Really. What caused the complete blackout at the lower part of the back of the head,just above the ruler, David? Photoshop?

Photos can't be faked in your world, can they?

Try telling the above witnesses that they were wrong.

Rule Brittania, Brittania rules the waves.....

Sometimes it's "Brittania waives the rules...", Bob

Bennett said the fatal bullet "HIT THE RIGHT REAR HIGH" of JFK's head. Does that sound like he thinks the shot entered from the front? Of course not.

But Bennett's "four inches" guess was just that--an estimate/guess.

So we have a choice here---believe the BEST evidence for JFK's back wound (which is the above autopsy photo).

Or:

Believe Glen Bennett's guesswork as he witnessed the shooting from the Queen Mary SS car.

Gee, that's a tough choice, isn't it?

(But guess what choice Ray Mitcham is going to make?)

But it's not just Bennett's "guess" is it?

The jacket - hole 5" down from the collar

Shirt- hole 5" down from collar,

Burkley- Wound at third thoracic vertebra.

Autopsy sheet- hole shown approx 5" down from shoulder. (see below)

Special Agent Clinton L. Hill saw the President's body being worked on at the morgue in Bethesda during the course of the autopsy. He stated to the Commission that just before the body was placed into a casket "I saw an opening in the back, about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column"

Special Agent Roy H. Kellerman -" the hole that was in his shoulder, and with a probe, and we--were standing right alongside of him, he is probing inside the shoulder with his instrument and I said, "Colonel, where did it go?" He said, "There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's shoulder."

The Embalmers Sheet.

What you got, David?

BTW, Ray, do you think Bennett was right when he said this?....

"A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head."

You're getting more hilarious by the minute, Ray. Do you think Glen Bennett whipped out a ruler and dashed up to JFK's car and started measuring distances?

OF COURSE Bennett's "four inches" statement was a guess. How could it possibly be anything else BUT a "guess"?

Also....

If Bennett saw the bullet hole in "JFK's back", he would have been looking at this wound (with the President's bunched-up jacket over the top of it, of course), and this wound isn't four inches below the shoulder. And no amount of rubbish spouted by Ray Mitcham (or Glen Bennett) will alter the truth that resides within this photograph....

Even you could estimate the position of a hole in somebody's jacket if you saw it. (Come to think of it, maybe from your past utterances, you couldn't.)

Tell me why Bennett would say that the shot hit four inches below the shoulder if he didn't see it.

Oh, I forgot, Special Agent Bennett spouted rubbish. This from DVP!!

Regarding the head wound, he saw a huge wound at the back of the President's head. He was quite right. But he didn't say it was an entrance wound.

Re: Bennett....

Once again.....

I was merely stating an obvious fact --- i.e., the only way that Glen Bennett could KNOW for certain that a bullet hit the President "about four inches down from the right shoulder" would be to either see the bullet in flight (which, of course, is humanly impossible) or to see the bullet hole in Kennedy's body or clothing or to see the blood oozing from a wound in the President's back. Other than these methods, tell me HOW a witness could state for certain exactly where on JFK's back the bullet entered?

Main point being --- Bennett GUESSED. And his GUESS wasn't too far afield, I will say that. And he also GUESSED about the head entry wound too, which, interestingly enough, is a guess that is completely at odds with the LOW head entry found in the autopsy report, but is consistent with the autopsy photos....

"A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head."

-- Glen A. Bennett; 11/23/63

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-benne.htm

And as a side note here .... you can bet your last greenback that you'll never ever hear a conspiracy theorist quoting the above Bennett quote concerning the head shot that Bennett said came FROM BEHIND. But the CTers sure love Glen Bennett when it comes to his amazing ability to pinpoint the location of President Kennedy's back wound.

So, Bennett's guesswork was fairly accurate as things turned out. But there's no way he could have known with any certainty precisely how many inches below the shoulder JFK was struck.

Once again, I reiterate, No amount of your rubbishy explanations will alter the facts.

He saw the bullet hole in JFK's back. Is that really too hard for you to understand?

"He guessed". How the hell do you know he guessed? Did you ask him? Or is it just your assumption? Or he had to have guessed because it doesn't suit you theory?

As I previously said, no matter what rubbish you keep coming up with your position is untenable.