Ray Mitcham

No problem. Multi shooters. My problem is proving where the shots came from. One shot was from the front hitting the President in the right temple., plus shooters from the rear. Whether or not Oswald was involved in the shots from the rear is immaterial. My theory needs no magic bullet.

Thanks for posting that page, Pat. It appears to destroy your argumernt. You quote Dr Baxtwer as saying in his Warren Commisssion testimony that the wound was “temporal and parietal” yet his first statements say “On first observation of the remaining wounds the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table, with .extensive lacerations and contusions. You quote Dr Don Curtis as saying” the wound was on the “posterior lateral surface of the skull. Quite correct; posterior means “rear” and lateral means “away from the midline”. So the wound was at the back of the head to the right of the midline. Dr Midgett’s comment “is reported to have told Posner the wound was "more parietal than occipital" Is reported to have told Posner!!!! Posner? ROTFLMAO You quote Dr Seldin “While Seldin, understandably considering the time involved, was somewhat confused, telling Palamara the bullet struck Kennedy in the forehead (perhaps he meant upon exit)” Who said he was “somewhat confused”? “Perhaps he meant upon exit” Perhaps?!!!! Dr Zelditz “"There was an area, I'd say, 8 by 12 centimeters in the back of the head on the right hand side on the occipito-parietal area, that was gone. And it was filled with blood, tissue, hair, bone fragments, and brain fragments, and that's all you could see." His quote confirms where the wound was. If you would like, Pat, I will supply the various statements of the surgeons who said that the wound was in the occital/parital area.

Quote By DVP "There is no reasonable alternative to the Single Bullet Theory" Only in your world, David. It was "Theory" dreamt up to fit a scenario in which only three bullets were fired , one of which hit a bystander. Unfortunately you can't see that.

Now who is being the silly one, David. I note you never answered my question. Obviously one bullet caused both holes. Again I ask you, do you really believe that the jacket and shirt both bunched up the same amount? Really?.

David, do you really believe that both the jacket and the shirt bunched up the same amount, just as the shot was fired? Really?

I then took a wider look at the Parkland witnesses, and realized that a number of them did not describe the occipital wound they are purported to have described. Which ones would they be, then, Pat? (I don't want any "later" statements which showed some of the surgeons toeing the line-)

Pat, If the Harper bone fragment is Parietal bone i.e. from the right side of he President's head, (which I assume is your position), can you explain how it was found, 25' to the left and rear of where the limo was, when the head shot occurred?

Larry, how much more apparent do you want the wound to be than that seen by the surgeons at Parkland? ie. ""The head wound was difficult to see when he was laying on the back of his head. However, afterwards when they moved his face towards the left, one could see the large, right rear, parietal, occipital, blasted out hole, the size of my fist, which is 2 and a half inches in diameter. The brain, cerebral portion had been flurred out and also there was the cerebellum hanging out from that wound. It was clearly an exit wound from the right rear, behind the ear. A right occipital area hole, the size of my fist.""

It depends which one thinks is likely. Could the photos be fake or altered? Could the Parkland doctors initial comments be incorrect. I know which is more likely.

If you were involved in an illicit affair, would you keep letters, receipts etc, Carmine?

Frazier is quite right. Oswald obviously couldn't have been on the stairs at the Lancer Conference.

Tom Robinson, the mortician must also have ben hallucinating when he said to the ARRB. "a large open head wound in the back of the Presidents head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone as well as some scalp" So many competent people who saw what wasn't there.

I prefer to believe the first statements of the Parkland surgeons.

Quote by PatSpeer. " But that's not all she had to say. According to White's notes, she also said: "All the ride to the hospital, I kept bending over him saying, 'Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you, Jack.' I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..." White's notes then detail that when discussing her husband's condition at the hospital, Mrs. Kennedy said "From here down"--and here she made a gesture indicating her husband's forehead--"his head was so beautiful. I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead." Thus, according to White, she said the wound was at the "top" of her husband's head--not once but twice..." It is important to note "According to White's notes.." Hearsay doesn't count.

The words "right rear" are pretty vague, Robert. If someone hit me above the right ear from behind I would tell people he hit me on the back of the head. Hill has consistently claimed that by "right rear" he means above the right ear Above the right ear would be "right mid" or "right side" not "right rear" Funny how one can make things mean what you want them to mean.

I don't disagree with anything you say, David. I was just suggesting a reason why Oswald might not have been mentioned.

Not evidence, Bob. Supposition.

David, perhaps Lovelady nearly identified Oswald. Mr. BALL - Who was with you? Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me Mr. BALL - What was that last name? Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton. Beautiful interruption by Ball. who never let Lovelady say who was behind him.

Lovelady always claimed he was doorman. EVERY co-worker of Oswald's and Lovelady's ever asked about the man in the Altgens photo claimed Lovelady was doorman. Buell Frazier, in Dallas on the most recent 22nd, claimed Lovelady was doorman for the millionth time. There was confusion over the shirt Lovelady wore on the 22nd. The FBI seemed to think Lovelady wore the shirt he'd been wearing on the 22nd when they took his photo. He later told Groden that they'd failed to ask him to wear the shirt he'd been wearing on the 22nd when they took his photo. Anyone who's studied the records know that the FBI was far from perfect and made numerous mistakes. Unless someone can find an image of Lovelady on the 22nd WEARING THE SHIRT he was wearing in the subsequent FBI photo, the issue is completely closed.

No, it isn't Bob. The arm is not in front of Lewis. Perspective makes it appear so. Doorman is set back quite a few feet from Lewis, so I agree that it couldn't be his arm if it was in front of Lewis. It just isn't.

Believe what you want, Bob. Unfortunately, like religion, it isn't enough. I'm not prepared to go on showing how wrong you are. You are now parroting exactly what Ralph Cinque said last year before he disappeared after being laughed off the forum. Cheers. (p.s. You aren't Cinque is disguise are you, Bob?-- Just wondering.)

The black guy (Lewis?) in front of Doorman is wearing a white shirt, so what you say is his arm, can't be. educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=6 Doorman's shirt is plaid. Oswald's isn't. You are seeing what you want to see.

Hi Bob. He hasn't .The black guy's body can't be seen as it is behind the building corner.

They didn't there is no comparison. It is Lovelady. The shirt is the correct, the hair is correct. Both match the later photos of Lovely. Give it up, Bob. Not only are you are barking up the wrong tree. Seems you are in the wrong forest.

In the photo above. if what you have shown is Lewis's arm then he must be deformed.