Ray Mitcham
-
Posts
1,867 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Ray Mitcham
-
-
Right, Ray. And "directly behind" the Newmans at the moment of the fatal head shot is....where again? Certainly NOT the famous "picket fence" on the Knoll.
More.....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html
During a 2003 interview, Bill Newman goes into even more detail about his observations (at the 6:20 mark of the video below), when he says that his opinion about the direction from which the head shot came was derived more from the "visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise".
Newman saw the right side of JFK's head explode, and he immediately interpreted that VISUAL experience (incorrectly) as a bullet that struck the President in the right-front (temple) area of his head. And Newman explicitly says that very thing in this interview -- http://www.c-span.org/video/?287932-101/kennedy-assassination-bill-gayle-newman-part-2
And directly behind Bill Newman is not the TSBD.
Another good video . Confirms what their earlier views.
In it, he says that the shots came more from the fence area behind him more to his right than from the TSBD to his left.You say that "he immediately interpreted that VISUAL experience (incorrectly)…" only in your opinion, David, only in your opinion!.
I can see why the Warren Commission didn't want them to be interviewed.
Zapruder also said he thought the shots came from over his right shoulder.
-
The Newman interview is good, David.
This is part of what they said in the interview, (interviewers questions in italics)
Bill Newman
“ As the car got directly in front of us, uh, a gunshot, apparently from behind us hit the President in the side of the temple.”
“Did you think the first gunshot came from behind you too?”
“I think it came from the same location, uh, apparently back up on the, uh, the mall, what ya call it.”
“Do you think the shot came from up on top of the viaduct towards the President? Is that correct?”
“Yes sir--Er no not on the viaduct itself, but up on top of the hill or the mound of ground at a garden”
“How far away would you say that is from where the President was ? A couple or three hundred yards, something like that?”
“Well I haven’t no idea ‘cos I didn’t see where the gunshots come from. We were looking directly at the President when he was hit, and he was more or less directly in front of us, and we didn’t realize what was happening until we seen the side of his head, whenever the bullet hit him in the head”
“snip”
To Gail Newman “Did you see anyone else hit besides the err...”
“Governor Connolly was kind of turned to his side and grabbed his stomach”
“snip”
To Bill Newman
“Do you have you idea which direction the shots came from that hit the President and Mr Connolly. Did you see which if the shots came from one direction and one from another?”
”No, They both came directly from behind where we were standing…The President, it looked like though he was looking in that direction..I don’t know whether he was hit first, apparently he was . It looked like he jumped up in his seat, and when he jumped up, well he was shot directly in the head. And re I don’t know what you call it the mall behind us ,but, apparently that’s where he was ”
-
Here's another one, Ray. This guy claims that the body arrived by helicopter, was on a gurney cover by a sheet, and was placed in a grey ambulance. And to top it off he claims Jackie was on the helo too.
I'm only concerned with people who were at the autopsy. You could probably find a lot of contributors like that.
For example, Sibert said that there wasn't a casket team to welcome the casket when it arrived, yet we have testimony which proves otherwise, and he was there, but not necessarily at the same time. There are too many anomalies in the various stories, especially regarding nothing happening before 8 p.m.
-
O'Connor was either right with the time he saw the body removed, or right about what the body was wrapped in.
As the wrappings do not agree with Humes but do agree with Edward Reed, who said when he saw the body it the body was wrapped in plastic, rather than Parkland sheets, (see http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Reed_10-21-97.pdf page 28) then it would appear that he was right about the wrapping and not the time.
He also says that the personnel who brought the casket in lifted the body out of the casket, which again is not what Humes said.
Either he was mistaken or there was a lot of shenanigans going on before the official autopsy.
He could be wrong on both accounts, Ray. This isn't necessarily an either or proposition. I personnally take anything O"Connor says with a grain a salt. He's also claimed that there was no brain with the body and the throat wound looked like a blown out mess.
The decoy ambulance story is interesting, but, even if true, they've yet to prove JFK was in it. And No one has yet to explain how they got the ambulance away from Gen. McHugh at the front of the hospital and back again without him noticing.
Maybe McHugh was in on the switch.(http://www.manuscriptservice.com/McHugh/)
-
I don't put much stock in the Israel story, Ray. No one else reports him as being there. And his claim that everyone is told to leave but he is allowed to stay is a bit much.
You forget the attitude towards black people in the fifities and sixties. they were considered to be non persons who were virtually invisible. I would be interested to know why Israel told the story if it wasn't true.
-
O'Connor was either right with the time he saw the body removed, or right about what the body was wrapped in.
As the wrappings do not agree with Humes but do agree with Edward Reed, who said when he saw the body it the body was wrapped in plastic, rather than Parkland sheets, (see http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Reed_10-21-97.pdf page 28) then it would appear that he was right about the wrapping and not the time.
He also says that the personnel who brought the casket in lifted the body out of the casket, which again is not what Humes said.
Either he was mistaken or there was a lot of shenanigans going on before the official autopsy.
-
Scott,have you ever read this is a report regarding Clarence Israel, whose brother was a black orderly at the autopsy.
-
Scott, how come O'Connor saw a pink shipping casket arrive and the President in a body bag, at 8p.m., when Humes said the body was in the Parkland casket and wrapped in sheets?
"We opened the casket, Dr. Boswell and I, and the President's body was unclothed in the casket, was wrapped in a sheet labeled by the Parkland Hospital"
Could he have got his times mixed up?
-
Thanks for your comments. I have followed parts of the other thread
but have not had time to study them all. I will go over it some more.
Meanwhile, I would encourage those who have not read INTO
THE NIGHTMARE to dig into the book's highly detailed analysis
of these events. In regard to one question above:
The Dallas Police Department claimed not to have known who
Oswald was until he was at the police station after 2 p.m. They claimed the man
arrested at the Texas Theatre about ten minutes before that had two pieces of identification,
in the names of Lee Oswald and Alek Hidell. and that Oswald wouldn't give his name, though that account is highly questionable.
So an order to Tippit and the other officer (probably William
Mentzel) to hunt down Oswald shortly after the 12:30 assassination
indicates covert police foreknowledge of Oswald-as-suspect. There is
no record of an APB for him in the police dispatcher tapes. The
description of a suspect that was broadcast at 12:45 differs in some particulars from Oswald.
It does not mention the suspect is headed to Oak Cliff. So
the two officers had to have had another way of getting their orders
to pursue Oswald in Oak Cliff. I believe Oswald was known to
the DPD through surveillance and possibly as an informant.
Wasn't Tippit supposed to have dashed into the Top Ten record store to use the phone? Maybe that's how they were getting surreptitious messages.
By the way, Joseph. I'm in the middle of your book and loving it.Well done.
-
Why would the Post Office accept an incorrectly addressed parcel in the first place, when there was nothing to link Hidell to Oswald's box?
We don't know that Hidell's name wasn't on the application for Box 2915. That portion of the application was discarded.
And for CTers who bring up the FBI report found in CE2585, I offered up this retort in 2010....
" "Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A. Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963." -- Via FBI Report of 6/3/64 [CE2585]
But we know from all the available (and unavailable) evidence associated with the topic of Lee Harvey Oswald's P.O. Box applications that the FBI did not actually see and examine Part 3 of the application Oswald filled out for Box #2915 in Dallas, because that portion of the application simply does not exist. So, how could the FBI, in November 1963 or June 1964, have seen something that was thrown away in May 1963?
Therefore, when the FBI came to the conclusion cited above on Page 4 of its report dated June 3, 1964, the FBI was relying on information OTHER than Part 3 of Oswald's application for P.O. Box 2915.
And I'm wondering if possibly the FBI made the same mistake that Gary Craig and other people have made [see the link below to see Craig's gaffe]: they mixed up the two P.O. Box applications for boxes 2915 and 6225. The 6225 box application still had Part 3 attached to it, but Box 2915 did not.
Maybe the FBI made the same error conspiracy theorists make when those CTers try and prop up Cadigan Exhibit No. 13 as proof that Oswald didn't list A. Hidell as a person entitled to receive mail at Box 2915.
In any event, even if it was an error on the part of the FBI, the error most certainly cannot be considered to be a sinister lie. Not even conspiracy theorists could consider such an error to be conspiratorial or sinister.
Why?
Because J. Edgar Hoover's FBI is almost always thought to be one of the major forces behind a "cover-up" in the JFK assassination investigation by conspiracy promoters. And this possible mistake about the P.O. Box application of Oswald's is a mistake that makes it appear LESS likely that Oswald could have received the assassination weapon through the mail.
So, if Hoover's boys were making up stories, then they would have lied in the OTHER direction and would have claimed that Oswald definitely HAD listed A. Hidell as a person who could receive mail at P.O. Box 2915. Instead, the FBI concluded that he definitely had NOT listed Hidell on the application.
[...]
BTW, it also makes no sense for Oswald to purchase guns under the name HIDELL and have them shipped to a P.O. Box where he DID NOT have the name HIDELL listed as a person authorized to receive mail.
But, on the other hand, since the post office delivers to ADDRESSES and not specific PEOPLE, it's very likely that Oswald would not have had any problem getting a package addressed to HIDELL even if that name was not on any kind of official authorization form." -- DVP; July 2010
Strange that, although the Postal Sevice should have kept the portion of the box application form which would have shown what name(s) were on it, it was disposed of. By whom, we know not. Unfortunate that.
Your point about the Postal Service delivering to addresses and not to people is a red herring, as we are not talking about delivering, we are talking about collecting. If for some reason my post is held at the Post Office, I have to show proof of both address and name. So your suppositon that it is "very likely"that Oswald would not have had any problem is just that your supposition.
Why on earth would the FBI say they knew that only Oswald's name was on the form, if they hadn't seen it or knew about what it contained.?
Your point about Why would Oswald order a rifle in the name of Hidell when the box didn't have Hidell's name on it, is quite right,. Why on earth would he? Or should we say Did he?
-
The biggest query for me is why the Post Office would accept a rifle addressed to A.Hidell at Oswald's post box.
Particularly, nobody recalls accepting it and nobody remembers giving it to Oswald, and it wasn't signed for.
Why would the Post Office accept an incorrectly addressed parcel in the first place, when there was nothing to link Hidell to Oswald's box?
-
This is a screen shot from the above Penn and Teller video showing the FBI recreation of the sniper view, with Connolly 6" further inboard than JFK.
The yellow line shows the amount of diversion the Magic bullet would have to have made to strike Connally in the right shoulder.
Without a massive deflection (caused by what?) the bullet would have hit the back of Connally's jump seat.(This photo is later in the sequence than when the shot was allegedly fired, but if the shot was earlier then the line of flight of the bullet would have been much steeper and even more ludicrous.)
-
As per his song, re the assassination--We shall overcome!
-
New short video which might cause a few comments.
Thoughts?
-
Seems the site owner might have had a bit of a byas against some of them, Bill.
(Sorry. Couldn't resist it!)
-
Testimony of Humes to the AARB
" Mr Gunn: " Dr. Humes, when did you first see the body of President Kennedy?"
Dr Humes "I didn't look at my watch, if I even had a watch on, but I would guess it was 6:45 or 7 o'clock, something like that, approximately."
Huh?
-
I watched this video. It was somewhat difficult to follow at times, and appears based on his multivolume work Inside the ARRB.
One thing that did stick out was his reliance on the Sergeant Boyajian memo that states that the coffin arrived at Bethesda at 6.35pm
I am wondering how reliable this document is. If it is authentic and unchallengeable it raises a series problem.
Horne's narrative is that the coffin arrived at 6.35, as per the Boyajian memo, and, recorded by by Sibbert and O'Neil, the official autopsy was at 8:00pm. Thereby allowing an hour and a half time disparity.
If the Boyajian memo is unimpeachable evidence then there is a series problem here.
I am curious what members feel about the integrity of this memo.
James
James, the memo appears to be confirmed by Dennis David who said the coffin arrived "about 6.45", and Edward Reed, a techinican at Bethesda said it arrived "around 6.30p.m."
-
Do you guys still think a shot from the 5th floor West face of the building is feasible? As I think it through, it make sense. Not expert in the trajectories, but... with the entire world focused (for 50 years) on the open windows of the 6th floor South side of the building, it amazes me that other locations were not more rigorously investigated.
Gene, according to first DPD reports , the rifle was found on the "fifth" floor.
-
My responses in bold.
These wounds are NOTHING like what was described in the back of JFK's head.
WRONG. Clark said he thought it was a tangential wound. He thought it from the first, and brought it up on his testimony because he wanted us to know what he thought. Your whole argument rests upon his expertise. Are you really calling him an incompetent?
Sorry Pat, but Clark didn;t say that. He said"“the head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue.”
-
bump
Working OK for me, Bob. Maybe you need to reboot your machine.
-
My comments in bold.
Look here, Andric, for someone who tells others not to "cherry pick", you certainly seem to practice this yourself a lot.
However, since you seem intent on "exposing" Dr. Clark, I will help you out in this regard. At the end of the discussion, we will see just how bizarre and twisted the evidence presented by the WC really is. The only question that will remain is, who is mad? Clark? Specter? Or has some serious tampering of testimony taken place in regards to Clark's WC testimony?
The last question can never be answered, as there was no counsel to speak on LHO's behalf. Anyways, let's look at what Dr. Clark had to say about JFK's wounds.
Early on in his testimony, Dr. Clark first describes the head wound to Arlen Specter. "This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." This clearly points to the back of the head, slightly to the right of the back of the head, and low in the back of the head. How do I know it is low? The presence of cerebellar tissue. The diagram below shows the location of the cerebellum.
This isn't true. There is nothing in Clark's testimony to suggest the wound was LOW in the back of the head. The Parkland witnesses thought the bullet entering Kennedy's throat exploded out the back of his head. This trajectory would take it through the cerebellum. Their thinking they saw cerebellum, therefore, doesn't suggest the hole they saw was at the level of the cerebellum. Dr. Peters, for one, said it did not. I spoke to James Jenkins on 11-22. He insisted that 1) there was no hole on the skull at the level of the cerebellum, and 2) the cerebellum suffered little damage. Dr. Clark took a quick look at the skull and brain. Jenkins held it in his hands. Who is more likely to be reliable on this issue?
Well, I tried to post a diagram of the brain showing the location of the cerebellum but Surprise! Surprise! I seem unable to c/p anything. Anyways, the cerebellum is a tiny part of the brain at the very bottom of brain mass and at the very back of the brain, behind the brainstem. It would basically be almost directly beneath the location Commander Humes gives at the autopsy for the bullet entrance wound; beneath the external occipital protuberance.
When you say "beneath" do you mean beneath the skull at the level of the entrance? Or beneath the entrance level, lower on the skull than the entrance level?
Now, Andric, before you go running off saying that Dr. Clark must have been mistaken about the location of the large head wound and the presence of damaged cerebellar tissue, remember that this is the Parkland director of neurosurgery you are speaking of. Also remember that you seem to have no problem trusting his powers of observation when you feel he is referring to the right side of JFK's head when referring to the large wound. Who is the cherry picker here?
Uhhh, not to speak for Andric, but I believe he picked out that bit for the same reason I did--to show Clark was erratic, not to show how he REALLY thought.
Next time we hear of the head wound Clark described as a "large, gaping wound", Specter is asking Clark if he feels it is an exit or entrance wound. This is where the BS really starts to pile up. Remember, this is a few months after the assassination, and there has been ample time to terrorize Clark into "getting with the program". Dr. Clark describes the large, gaping wound as being one of entrance, but also a "tangential wound". In other words, instead of striking JFK's skull squarely, Clark believed the bullet struck JFK's skull at an oblique angle, despite the Zapruder film showing JFK bent over slightly and the back of his head almost square on to a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Clark states that a bullet striking at an oblique angle would have to penetrate far more bone and thus would shed more energy, causing greater damage to the brain.
Yes, this is one of the most important observations made by a Parkland witness.. I decided to follow-up on Clark's observation, and concluded he was correct.
This is utter nonsense on Clark's part, and clearly something Clark has been coached on.
My God, Robert! Please please please do the homework! Clark said he thought it was a tangential wound in the 11-22 press conference, months before he ever spoke to Specter!
First, this was a FMJ bullet and would have been more than capable of penetrating the skull.
It has nothing to do with capability, it has to do with the angle of impact. Early books on wound ballistics often refer to the high incidence of gutter (or tangential) wounds related to FMJ ammunition.
Second, if it did shed more energy than normal, it still would not have been able to cause a large gaping wound at the entrance site. Bullets just do not work like this.
WRONG. The three large wounds on the slide below are all tangential wounds created by 6.5 mm FMJ ammunition.. DO THE READING.
I have shot many deer in my time with both soft tipped and hollow point bullets. Oblique angles or not, there is ALWAYS a small entrance wound. Any large holes are ALWAYS towards the other side of the skull.
To make matters worse, Clark is describing how a large, gaping wound occurred that, according to the autopsy, did not exist (?)
What? Of course such a wound existed. Clark and Humes BOTH described a large wound of scalp and skull. Such a wound, according to the top textbook on forensic pathology, written by the leader of the Clark Panel, along with a member of the Rockefeller Commission and HSCA Panel, is a wound of ENTRANCE.
The next we see of head wound discussion, Clark and Specter are discussing Dr. Perry's reference, at a press conference, to the throat wound possibly being a wound of entrance and the possibility this was responsible for the head wound. Clark responds, "He did not elaborate on this. One of the reporters with gestures indicated the direction that such a bullet would have to take, and Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head."
The "occipital" region does not necessarily relate to the occipital bone. It refers to the "occiput." It is routinely used to mean back of the head, which includes parietal bone as well as occipital bone.
That's what we have been saying all along Pat, the BACK of the head, not the top, or the side.
-
Cliff, the whole of Dave Reitz's posts have also disappeared (not that I agreed with his arguments) but it seems strange that he has disappeared as a member as well. Voluntarily or censored?
-
I find it hard to believe that the "head of neurosurgery" would be mistaken as to the location of a head wound. Yes, professionals do make mistakes, but rarely such obvious ones.
Hear hear, Ken. It seems Pat prefers to believe (possibily altered/fake) photos and x rays rather than the testimony of experienced surgeons, who saw what they saw. Perhaps it might be better to let things.
-
Other people dispute Pitzer's presence that night and the whole Daniel Marvin story (Marvin's story sounds fake)
Vince,Pitzer didn't necessarilly have to be in the room. The film may well have been from the close circuit system, as Dr Humes confirmed,
"In fact, not only did we review them there, but there was a closed circuit television. They [sic] went to Andrews Air Force Base, NIH, and it was a closed circuit instruction.
I agree about that the Marvin story seems way out but stranger things have happened.
JFK's Head Wound: a Timeline of the Earliest Statements
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Ray Mitcham
My replies in red