Ray Mitcham

Groden provided no further proof that LOVELADY wore plaid on 11/22/1963 but his hack job has also become some sort of holy grail epiphany that somehow single handedly discredits official FBI reports and photographs accepted as evidence in truth by the US government and the news media. Researchers now might desire to argue about whether the agents, photographer, FBI, WC and the news media misunderstood what LOVELADY actually claimed or LOVELADY was confounded by the FBI agents and photographer about one of the most important pieces of evidence desired by the American Citizens that would help determine if LOVELADY or OSWALD was DOORMAN. I call BS

!

Bob, is it your contention that doorman is wearing a plaid shirt?

Ray, the pupil and the iris of DOORMANs eyes are clearly discernable.

Photos can be and are staged.

LOVELADY made it perfectly clear that he wore the short sleeved shirt during the assassination, what part of his statement and accompanying photographs are you finding incomprehensible?

Please stop your insults, you don't agree with evidence presented, post counter-arguments.

Bob, I have no intention of insulting you. I was just warning you about what would happen if you continue with this stupid theory. Cinque was a guy who had the same theory and he has been laughed off every forum he has put the theory forward. He even said that the photo of Lovelady (The one which you say you can even tell the difference in the color of the irises- sheesh!) had been altered to show that Oswald had been given Lovelady's hair style.

I would hate to see the same fate befall you.

Perhaps you would answer the following asked of you on another site by another poster.

"So, what you're saying is, the conspirators realised that the man IN THE CHECKED SHIRT was in fact Oswald. So they had to force Lovelady to say he was wearing a checked shirt in order to place Oswald in the snipers nest. They also faked films and photos of Lovelady in the checked shirt to further enforce this argument. They even forced Lovelady to pose in the checked shirt in 1971.

All this because Oswald wore a loud checked shirt on 22 November 1963?

So Bob, was Oswald wearing a loud checked shirt that day?"

Bob, you are in danger of becoming a laughing stock like Cinque. Doorman is Lovelady, no matter what you try to infer that in the black and white photo his eyes are the wrong color.

You say

"The iris of the eyes is absolute proof that OSWALD was on the steps of the TSBD during the assassination, absolute proof."

when you can't even see the pupils in the photo.

Me thinks you are seeing what you want to see.

How you can state that Doorman is Oswald, when Doorman has the same shirt on as Lovlady in later photos, and has the same face shape and hair style. You re barking up the wrong tree.

Don't let yourself get the nickname Mad Bobby, rather than Bob Mady.

Welcome, Yoni. I hope you enjoy your stay.

Tom [Hume],

The window sills in the TSBD were very low, as we can see in the photos below (CE 488 and 489). Someone of Oswald's height (5-feet-9), when standing, would definitely reach the upper windows, as seen here:

I beg to differ, DVP.

For height comparison purposes, that's Bonnie Ray Williams on the left in the bottom photo you posted (CE489).

Taking the sharp angle of Dillard's camera into consideration, I think the person captured or placed in CE482 must have been taller than Bonnie Ray Williams in order to place his face in the center of that upper window.

Here is Bonnie Ray Williams waiting to get into a police car, with Danny Arce and Officer Brown(?) standing right behind him. I'm guessing that Oswald was much closer in height to Arce and Brown(?) than he was to the tallish Bonnie Ray Williams.

--Tommy

Thanks, Tommy. That's what I thought..

If that's Oswald in the picture, then he is either standing on a box or he is over seven feet tall.

To show that there’s more than just one side to the “Limo Stopped” story, here is an interview with assassination eyewitness Pierce Allman, a WFAA newsman, who said —— “The car kept going; the car did not stop.”

Also note Allman’s account of the spacing of the "THREE" shots he heard —— “The shots didn’t seem rapid at all. They were three well-spaced, reverberating shots.”

This interview with Allman was aired live on WFAA-Radio in Dallas less than 90 minutes after President Kennedy was shot:

Of course, the whole "Limo Stopped" topic that is constantly being dredged up by conspiracy theorists is ridiculous in the first place, because everybody agrees (and the films confirm this too) that the President's car was moving at a snail's pace the entire time it was on Elm Street. It was only moving at about 11 MPH even BEFORE the first shot was fired. That's incredibly slow to begin with.

So I guess it must be the contention of the conspiracists that driver William Greer was deliberately driving at a super-slow speed all along Elm Street, and he then (per the CTers) completely stopped the car in order for the kill shot to be achieved with greater accuracy (even though the Nix and Zapruder films prove the car did not completely stop).

Such accusations against SS agent Greer are despicable, of course. And the theory about the Zapruder Film being altered to "remove" the alleged limo stop is equally as ludicrous, because such a theory requires Orville Nix's film to be altered in the exact same manner. And as the following video demonstrates, the Zapruder and Nix films are in perfect "The limo slowed down and almost came to a stop, but it did not come to a complete stop" harmony:

DVP's JFK Archives / Assassination Arguments (Part 786)

Quote by Pierce Allman.

"A very dramatic thing, I can't forget, it at all, I keep hearing the shots. And on the third one the President then - instead of slumping forward it looked like he was, he - he jerked back or was thrown back a little bit. And Mrs. Kennedy then was halfway out of the seat and a Secret Service man - I presume he was - a Secret Service man was then over Mrs. Kennedy. And the car had stopped only momentarily and then immediately sped away at top speed. "

What chains would they be, Harry?

Thread bumped on the first anniversary of the first post on the subject..

Anybody heard from Sean of late?

None of the Italian war vets that I talked to ever called a bullet a Humanitarian rifle.

Why would they, Ken?

Did you mean "None of the Italian war vets that I talked to ever called a Carcano a humanitarian rifle"?

Duncan, did you not read that Bob said he had been away for some time and had no internet access?

That's why the first sentence of my post is a question and not a statement.

No, Duncan, Your first sentence was a statement where you accused Bob of still being a " master of bad taste."

You appeared to answer your own question by then asking Bob to make a public apology, before you knew the answer.

Duncan, did you not read that Bob said he had been away for some time and had no internet access?

By the way "if that was his name" is hardly a "disgusting insulting post." IMO

If the only tube inserted into JFK's chest was on his right side, what is this apparent slit on his left side?

In addition it says on the report above, that there was "obvious trachial and chest damage"

What chest damage?

Thanks for resurrecting the thread, Rob. I had never read that the doctors at Parkland and the autopsy doctors disagreed about the insertion of tubes into the chest of JFK. If, (and it seems to be a big "if") they were both right, then could there indeed be a case for body substitution?

1. The Parkland surgeons were right.

2. The Bethesda autopsy surgeonswas right.

3. Both sets of surgeons were right.

Which contention is correct?

If "A" (the single bullet) is impossible, then "B" needs to be investigated. As James has proven that "A" cannot be true, that leaves us with the problem of "B".

Unfortunately, James is correct, you cannot answer his dissertation and you just blather on about trying to prove the alternative. There are a number of solutions to the alternative, but we don't have to prove them to show that the Single bullet Theory is sunk without trace. As you can't accept it because of your flat earth outlook, James is right and you should be completely ignored. As somebody previously said you may be a good librarian, but then nobody would ask a librarian to explain a book to them.

Better get back to your cataloguing.

Ray,

How did your TWO bullets manage to enter JFK's upper body and yet CAUSE NO MAJOR DAMAGE at all?

Plus, since those TWO bullets of yours caused NO major damage, maybe you can explain to me how **BOTH** of those bullets managed to lose 100% of their velocity and just STOPPED inside Kennedy's soft tissue without exiting?

Any ideas, Ray?

Nope because the autopsy wasn't correctly carried out. If we had the full details and the surgeons had done their job we would; be wondering about thinks like that. But we do know that the magic bullet didn't cause trhe damage it should have. Perhaps you can explain that.

It is small wonder the public is not allowed to enter the area of the so called "Sniper's Nest" on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Just from viewing the evidence photos taken from the window on the SE corner, it quickly becomes apparent that Connally would have been sitting too far forward of JFK for the Magic Bullet to strike him under the right armpit, even allowing for an upward deviation after striking JFK's vertebra. The proof of this is that the bullet exited Connally's chest much lower than it entered his back.

Exactly, Bob. The bullet supposedly entered JFK's back at 17degrees downwards and yet at 25 degrees downwards in Connally.

A truly "cruise" missile.

It boils down to this....

By my rough count, the conspiracy theorists have TWO "magic bullets". The LNers have ONE so-called "magic bullet", which isn't magic at all, of course. The LN/SBT bullet at least EXISTS in the form of Commission Exhibit 399, whereas neither of the CT magic bullets exist at all. And yet CTers like Jim Gordon are so sure that TWO bullets did enter JFK's upper body. Seems to me like there's some "faith" going on there too, wouldn't you say, Mark Knight?

James doesn't think it's reasonable for me to ask him why there's no substantial damage inside JFK's upper body as a result of being hit by TWICE as many (supposedly) high-powered rifle bullets as the LNers postulate struck the President in the upper back and neck.

I'm supposed to be able to explain how ONE bullet managed to sneak through JFK's upper body without striking various organs, but James (who obviously DOES think JFK was struck by TWO bullets in the upper body versus just ONE bullet, with the entry points for each bullet being in just exactly the SAME place on Kennedy's body where I and all other LNers think they were!) doesn't think he's required to explain the ALTERNATIVE OPTION to the SBT, which would have him explaining to the world in a reasonable fashion how TWO bullets went into those SAME bullet holes in Kennedy's body and yet somehow caused NO major damage in that body, all the while vanishing from sight immediately after they entered.

Call me goofy if you'd like to, but James' scenario seems JUST AS HARD (or HARDER) to reconcile than the Single-Bullet Theory which features just one (non-vanishing) bullet going through JFK & JBC and ending up on Connally's stretcher.

I think maybe James WOULD be better off to just theorize that JFK wasn't shot AT ALL on November 22, 1963. That theory would be easier to reconcile than the one he has forced himself to try and reconcile--but he refuses to do so (and that's because he cannot reconcile it, because such a silly multiple-bullet theory is far more unbelievable than any "SBT").

David, you just don't get it, do you? The fact that the single bullet couldn't have happened because of the lack of damage on the alleged path, means it didn't happen. Regarding the two bullets that are missing, there are a number of ways to explain their absence.

The magic bullet couldn't have happened.

The two missing bullets could have.

Belief is a terrible thing. It's like trying to explain that world is round to a flat earther, talking to you.

Well, Ray, the O'Neill interview doesn't get into the "surgery" remark at all. I just threw that one in as a bonus. But O'Neill does confirm that ONLY "fragments" were taken from JFK's head at the autopsy--not a whole "missile".

Sibert talks about the "surgery" remark (which was not made by Sibert himself, of course, it was made by Dr. Humes) in this audio at about 9:00 ----> https://app.box.com/shared/v7pzrliv56

Thanks for the information, David. At 8.44 Sibert says 'the official" autopsy started". As against the unofficial autopsy earlier? Regarding Humes and the surgery to the head- do you really think that a surgeon would confuse a wound with surgery/ You really are desperate.

Once again no answer to James's statements about the damage which would have been caused if the bullet had done as SBT's think. James sinks the single bullet theory completely. The singel bullet theory is the Titanic of the JFK assassination.

Unfortunately, at the present time, I haven't time to listen to the full interviews of Sibert or O'Neill. Perhaps you can tell me exactly what they say regarding the surgery to the head prior to the Bethesda autopsy, and where on the MP3.

Nice diversion, by the way, David. Never mind what happened to the two bullets. You still haven't tried to explain why there was not massive damage which the Magic bullet would have to have caused, to have taken the path you advocate.

How could the bullet pass through JFK’s body without doing any serious damage? It could not pass through that maze of arteries, veins and nerves without causing major damage.

But your **TWO** bullets that must replace the SBT somehow COULD get into JFK's body, and then just stop on a dime, and yet not cause any major damage. (Yeah, right. Take that one in front of a jury. I'd love to see the rolling eyes of the jurors after hearing that argument, coupled with their exasperated reaction after James Gordon tells the jurors that all the bullets somehow inexplicably disappeared, to boot.)

"And I agree, with reservation regarding the lung and C7, that there was no major damage inside the body." -- James R. Gordon

You've got TWO "magic bullets" there, James. And the funny thing is--you don't even seem to realize it.

What do you think they were doing at the pre-autopsy.? Remember Sibert's comment on seeing the body when it was unwrapped at Bethesda- "There was surgery to the head" Who did the surgery to the head, David?

Oh for Pete sake, Pat, the "lack of any damage is consistent with the SBT" remark is perfectly obvious. I mean: If a bullet had gone clean through JFK's body and struck only soft tissue and hit no bones (as both the WC and HSCA said it did), then what was found inside JFK's body (i.e., no substantial damage to any vital structures) is, indeed, exactly what one would expect to find in the body given such a circumstance.

(Did I really need to explain that?)

If..If...If……..As James has previously said, please show how the magic bullet could have travelled through his back and out of his throat without hitting any bones.

Just saying it didn't, doesn't mean a carrot, David and you know it.

David, try answering James Gordon's points. Unless you can, you have to accept that the single bullet theory is a load of rubbish.

Bump again. (Seems like DVP has no answer.)

David, try answering James Gordon's points. Unless you can, you have to accept that the single bullet theory is a load of rubbish.

Bump.

(Where did Von Pein suddenly disappear to?)

David, try answering James Gordon's points. Unless you can, you have to accept that the single bullet theory is a load of rubbish.