Ray Mitcham

There are others much more qualified to comment than I but I did a good bit of hunting as a young man and its not necessary to see the bullet in flight. Often you can be pretty clear about

where the strike was from watching the target you shot at the time of impact.

Larry, nobody said Bennett saw the bullet in flight.It is just one of Von Pain's straw man arguments he is usually associated with.

I never said Bennett was "lying". I merely pointed out the obvious --- SS Agent Glen Bennett could not possibly have seen the bullet entering JFK's upper back, and therefore, Glen Bennett could not possibly have known for certain how far down on JFK's back the bullet entered.

Isn't this fact even obvious to you, Ray Mitcham?

The fact is enough for me.

Special Agent Bennett.

"I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder"

No matter what rubbish you come up to try to defend your position, it is untenable.

Yeah, Ray. Like Bennett SAW THE BULLET IN FLIGHT as it entered the President's back.

You must be kidding.

Once again Von Pain, you use the trick of quoting something which hasn't been written. Where did anybody say the "Bennett saw the bullet in flight". You seem to have the gift of misquoting other posters entries.

It is not just sloppy posting , but deliberate misquoting by you. Typical.

I would agree with your comments, Bob. The two men shown do not appear to be dressed in "management" apparel.

Yeah, Ray. Like Bennett SAW THE BULLET IN FLIGHT as it entered the President's back.

You must be kidding.

Yet another bona fide witness who was lying then. Strange how the ones who don't support the Warren Commission were all lying or mistaken.

To DVP

Special Agent Bennnett said he saw the bullet hit the President four inches down from the shoulder.

Was he lying, as well, David?

It's remarkable that your "evidence manufacturers", who certainly "weren't the brightest" people in the world, were able to pull off the alleged frame-up of Oswald---what with them being idiots and all. How did they manage it, Ray?

~shrug~

They didn't. That was brought about by the Warren Commission believing everything the FBI and the CIA told them.

The Warren Commission didn't "collect" any of the evidence. Nor did the FBI or CIA. The DPD did.

Where did I say the Warren Commission "collected" any of the evidence? You obviously can't read. I said they "believed everything the FBI and the CIA told them."

Too many CTers wrongfully claim that it was "the Warren Commission's evidence". Total nonsense. The WC didn't collect or test the evidence. The WC merely evaluated it.

They evaluated tainted evidence.

I notice no reply from you about about the shoulder wound.

The wound IS where it is, as anyone can see via the autopsy photograph. The wound is in the UPPER BACK. Not the NECK. Perfectly consistent with what we see in CE903 (within the "margin of error" leeway that MUST be afforded the WC regarding that exhibit, as I discuss HERE).

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/jfk-back-wound-location.html

Special Agent Bennnett said he saw the bullet hit the President four inches down from the shoulder.

Was he lying, as well, David?

I agree with your last comment. The evidence manufacturers weren't the brightest.

But you have no doubt that the evidence was, indeed, "manufactured", versus it being real and legitimate evidence that was merely being collected and handled by a bunch of idiot country cops who didn't know what they were doing. Right, Ray?

It's remarkable that your "evidence manufacturers", who certainly "weren't the brightest" people in the world, were able to pull off the alleged frame-up of Oswald---what with them being idiots and all. How did they manage it, Ray?

~shrug~

They didn't. That was brought about by the Warren Commission believing everything the FBI and the CIA told them.

I notice no reply from you about about the shoulder wound.

I just wonder how a document can be filed the day before it was written. If that leads one to believe it could be faked then so be it.

Perhaps you can explain. Oh no, guess you can't.

No, I can't. But I certainly wouldn't conclude that the various dates that show up on certain documents indicate any kind of fakery. Because it makes no sense for someone faking a document to put into the record a copy of that fake document which includes dates on it that would make that fake document look like an obvious fake document. Therefore, the answer likely resides outside the realm of "fakery".

But, maybe the plotters working for Hoover's FBI weren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.

I agree with your last comment. The evidence manufacturers weren't the brightest.

Incompetence is everywhere, isn't it Ray?

But where are you trying to go with this line of thought regarding the dates on the documents? Are you suggesting that the various dates that appear on some documents indicates they are fakes? Or what?

I just wonder how a document can be filed the day before it was written. If that leads one to believe it could be faked then so be it.

Perhaps you can explain. Oh no, guess you can't.

The 11/22 stamp is meant to reflect the date of the interview. (I guess.)

~shrug~

"(I guess)"

Yep. "I guess" is the best I can do. Sorry.

Maybe you can "guess" why the date on this memo is after it was typed up.

Quite right, Bob. This a present day photo, showing the TSBD. The only thing that has changed is the doorway at the top of the steps has been moved rearwards.

Beats me, Brian. I can't read a word of it.

So let's see.

The hole was shown to be in the shoulder according to the autopsy sheet.

The President's doctor, Dr Burkley, stated that the shot hit the President at the third Thoracic vertebra.

The President's jacket showed that the bullet hit him in the shoulder.

The President's shirt showed that the bullet hit him in the shoulder.

Special Agent Bennnett said he saw the bullet hit the President four inches down from the shoulder.

Who, apart from Specter, said it hit the President in the neck?

The 11/22 stamp is meant to reflect the date of the interview. (I guess.)

~shrug~

"(I guess)"

If it was typed up on the 23rd, how could it have a 22nd file stamp on it?

In the FBI memo posted above by DVP, it shows it as being written on 11.23.63. Anybody know why it shows a file stamp of 11.22.63 , the day before, at the bottom?

Special Agent Bennett on 11/22/63

"....At this point I heard what_sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. "

Another agent who got it wrong, David?

This is the type of camera Ike Altgens used.

More silver area than black

I think I might grimace if a shot came past my shoulder.

But let's say that Oswald did take his rifle to work that day, in a package or inside his pants, and used it to shoot at the president. If he did that, he wasn't the only one shooting. How do we know that? Because for one thing, the Mannlicher Carcano, or any other rifle you can name, does not fire magic bullets. Which brings us back to Von Pein's fairy-tale land.

Are you aware, Ron, that sound scientific analysis has proven the so-called 'magic bullet' theory? If you're not, and you think there is a more rational explanation, I'd like to hear it.

If all of the shots didn't come from behind, where do you think they came from? There was no grassy knoll shooter, unless you really do trust the likes of Jean Hill (changed her story in an effort to seek publicity) and Gordon Arnold (a retard who wasn't even there).

The head shot. Do you believe that came from the front? If you do, I'll show you why you're wrong. It's really quite simple.

Sound science has thoroughly debunked the SBT from the beginning.

No it hasn't. If you want to ignore the scientific analyses of the assorted bullet fragments recovered, that's fine. Let's forget about that. How then do you account for the film that shows Kennedy and Connally reacting to a shot at precisely the same time?

You are quite right, Paul, They are both reacting to a shot at precisely the same time. Trouble was they were reacting to a shot , not to "BEING" shot.

Can we discuss Prayerman here?

DVP has not much cred. left, like Photon, Bill brown, C.Lamson, Jean Davidson, G Posner and John M. (how the mighty have fallen....) he is successfully being countered time and time again, and almost (!) every time they bite the dust.

I wonder why these people continue, is it because of their pseudo religious fervor, or are they that stubborn and don't see the forest through the trees or are they paid disinfo 'artists'?

Answers on a postcard please.........

Some of them aren't intelligent enough to be paid disinfo artists.......

You either believe Frazier was telling the truth about the bag or you think he was lying.

So you don't even allow for the possibility of Frazier being "mistaken" about the length of the paper bag? Is that correct?

As I said, it's no wonder you're lost.

Was Linnie Mae also mistaken? How inconvenient that they both were "mistaken" about the size of the bag.

When you are in a hole, David, stop digging.

I'd love to know how CE399, the "magic bullet", came through all those wounds and lost just a small amount of lead from the base.

Jfk's back,

Jfk's throat,

Connally's back

Connally's rib

Connally's chest,

Connally's Wrist

Connally's thigh.

A truly "Magic" bullet.

It was a high velocity bullet. A little streamlined piece of metal designed to penetrate flesh. What's magic about it? If you watch the Zapruder film in slow motion you can see both Kennedy and Connally reacting simultaneously. How do you account for that?

And no damage? Show me another bullet which has done anything similar which didn't show damage.