Ray Mitcham

Bob, the envelope Nolan received was a "small brown envelope" The enverlope, from Bell, to plain clothes agents, containing the fragments was a see thru plastic envelope.

Hi Ray:

I don't have any documentation in front of me at the moment but I am curious as to the source that the "envelope" Bell gave to "plain clothes agents" was of the see through variety. Can you enlighten me?

Thanks,

Gary Murr

Gary, my mistake. The fragments were in a see thru plastic container not a see thru envelope. My bad.

You were correct that the fragments were placed into a transparent container, but the container was placed into a small envelope. This is a photo of both the envelope and the container.

Look closely at those tiny fragments. Does anyone actually believe that Audrey Bell showed that to DA Wade and a cop and told them that it was a single, whole bullet that came from Connally's gurney??

Quite right, Bob.

Bob, the envelope Nolan received was a "small brown envelope" The enverlope, from Bell, to plain clothes agents, containing the fragments was a see thru plastic envelope.

Hi Ray:

I don't have any documentation in front of me at the moment but I am curious as to the source that the "envelope" Bell gave to "plain clothes agents" was of the see through variety. Can you enlighten me?

Thanks,

Gary Murr

Gary, my mistake. The fragments were in a see thru plastic container not a see thru envelope. My bad.

Bob, the envelope Nolan received was a "small brown envelope" The enverlope, from Bell, to plain clothes agents, containing the fragments was a see thru plastic envelope.

Robert, you might wish to edit one of the sentences above.

Either way, Randy, it was either a conspiracy if he meant Oswald or a conspiracy if he didn't mesn Oswald. He just knew it was a consspiracy.

I do find all this very interesting and have decided to send

DVP a bright orange robe and a set of finger bells

Stop it, you swine! I've just spluttered cawfee all over my keyboard,again!

Seems Gary is a bit shy. He was on here after your post, Ian.

Best wishes for a full recovery, Greg.

The arguments that show Doorman has to have been Oswald are based upon

observation, comparison and reasoning. I break them down into four VERY

SIMPLE ARGUMENTS, which I have no doubt will not penetrate minds that

are impenetrable. The first argument, for example, is based on observation:

(1) Doorman's was wearing a long sleeved shirt with distinctive features.

Oswald was wearing a long sleeved shirt with distinctive features.

Therefore, Oswald's shirt makes him a strong candidate for Doorman.

Agreed.

The second is based upon observation, the FBI photographs and report,

and the principle of identity (the same person cannot be wearing a short-

sleeved shirt and a long-sleeved shirt at one and the same time), namely:

(2) Doorman was not wearing a short-sleeved shirt.

Lovelady was wearing a short-sleeved shirt.

Therefore, Lovelady was not Doorman.

Incorrect. Lovelady told the FBI he was wearing a short sleeved striped shirt. he was wrong.

The third argument is based upon observation and the same principle of

identity, where the differences between them are rather easy to observe:

(3) Doorman had a shirt that was splayed open.

Checkered Shirt Man was not splayed open.

Therefore, Checkered Shirt Man is not Doorman.

Incorrect. Other photographs show that "Checkered shirt man's" shirt is open as "doorway man"

The fourth argument is a simple deductive argument by elimination as follows:

(4) Doorman was Oswald or Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man.

But Doorman was not Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man.

Therefore, Doorman was Oswald.

False deductions from incorrect assumptions.

The rest of the post was the usual psychobabble.

Cos I is crap at da pictures mate.

Ian

ROFLMAO!

I am sorry, Robin, but shifting the burden of proof ought to be beneath

you. Much of the proof that his shirt was buttoned to the top comes

from the video you never tire of showing. If you now want to impeach

your own evidence, be my guest. But there is no good reason to think

that he would have had an shirt that was UNBOTTONED when he was

in the doorway and BUTTONED when he was captured on film only to

be UNBUTTONED AGAIN. This is going beyond the bounds of sanity.

No it is not my work, it came from Duncan's forum.

But if you are suggesting that the white blob is not his t-shirt.

Then you need to show us what it is, not just say it's something else

Robin, don't you know the above photo, showing the shirt open and the T shirt exposed, has been altered to prove that it wasn't Lovelady?

The rifle in the back yard pictures had a rope sling. mmmm.....

Even in this large Groden scan, it just doesn't have enough image detail to be able to support Hookes outrages shirt claims

Click on image to view FULL SIZE:

Robin, the blow up of the photo shows without any doubt that doorway man is slanted to his left meaning his left shoulder is at about 30degrees off horizontal.Shows that the idea that the houlder is mssing and that "black tie man" is at the same time in front of and behind doorway man is a load of horse hooey as shown in previous posts when the Buda pest was here.

It seems to have been officially "not there". On whose say so, is a mystery

"In April 1961, Essex steamed out of Naval Station Mayport, Florida on a two-week "routine training" cruise, purportedly to support the carrier qualification of a squadron of Navy pilots. Twelve A4D-2 Skyhawks had been loaded aboard, the aircraft, pilots and support crews all from attack squadron VA-34, the Blue Blasters. The A4D-2Ns were armed with 20 mm cannon, and after several days at sea all their identifying markings were crudely obscured with flat gray paint. They began flying mysterious missions day and night with at least one returning bearing battle damage. Not generally known to Essex crew was that they had been tasked to provide air support to CIA-sponsored bombers during the ill-fated Bay of Pigs Invasion. The naval aviation part of the mission was aborted by President Kennedy at the last moment and the Essex crew sworn to secrecy.^[1]

I don't know what to say, Pat. The throat wound was accepted as an entrance wound by all who saw it, including McClelland. See p. 63 BE for the citation. On p. 45 of BE, we have McClelland's two page hand-written report: "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." The left temple could not have been an exit wound. Perry ventured an opinion picked up by the LA Times on Nov 23 that possibly a bullet entered the neck and was deflected up and out the back of the head. So also Ronald JOnes, p. 42 BE, and yes, McClelland: "At the moment... it was our impression before we had any other information from any other source at all, when we were just confronted with the acute emergency...that this one bullet, that perhaps [had] entered through the front of the neck and then, in some perculiar fashion which we really han...to strain to explain to ourselves, had coursed up the front of the verterbra and intothe base of the skull and out the rear of the skull (BE, 42 footnote). The citation in the footnote is to the WC deposition. That he told Dudman something else later is irrelevant. By then the Dallas doctors had been made to change their opinion about the neck shot, and I am certain were browbeaten into accepting the official version. What counts are their first impressions.

On another matter, the placement of the exit wound in the back of the head is not relevant to the issue at hand: is the "back and back of the head photo " authentic? Especially if there was a large avulsive exit wound in the right rear TOP of the back of the head, that should be the dominant wound visible in that photo. But what to we see? It is the lower back of the head that appears darkened and hard to dicipher--right at the ear level and below. The top back appears intact. So if the exit wound was high in the back of the head, the photo has been faked; if it is lower, then the rendering of that part of the head shows attemtps to conceal this wound, which still should have been obvious in the photo. And if the photo is a fake, whatever it might say about the back wounds is meaningless as well. Worthless as evidence.

<snip>

What you don't seem to get, Daniel, is that the recollections of emergency room doctors is not the final say-so in determining cause of death. They observe and make reports. The body is then taken elsewhere and STUDIED by a pathologist, or coroner. It is the pathologist or coroner whose impressions are paramount, both in a court of law and in the field of medicine.

<snip>

Pat, the doctors weren't trying to ascertain the cause of death. They gave their views on the wounds. Yes they changed their minds after hearing what was said by the Bethesda autopsy, probably because of professional consideration, but that doesn't negate their first opinions.

Looks like the Cinqueopation is starting to play again.

removed by author

Paul, The photos prove that your "battleship" is Cinque. (In more ways than one.)

Why don't you provide a detailed description of your claims for the Forum, Ray? I'm sure others would like to read them as well.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I don't need to Paul. Just compare the photos. What other evidence do you need to show that you were wrong in your assumptions?

Paul, The photos prove that your "battleship" is Cinque. (In more ways than one.)

Paul, your theory is blown out of the water by the photos.

For Oswald to have made the cut out photo, he would have to have been psychic. If he indeed did make the cut out photo, as your theory states, then he would have had to have matched a photo that had yet to be taken.

Some trick.

Paul,

Marina also said she held the camera up to her eye to take the photograph, something you don't do with an Imperial reflex. Do you believe that she did this?

You omitted to discuss Lee's demolition of the cut out photograph. How did Oz make the foliage disappear in the cut out photograph? The cut out photograph appears to have been taken at the same time as the Bobby Brown photograph.

Ray, I believe we must make allowances for the fact that English was Marina's second language. "Held the camera up to her eye" is a stock English phrase -- what one traditionally did with a camera in older days. She probably meant to say "looked into the camera viewfinder," but she didn't have the vocabulary for that.

Believe what you want. She "probably" didn't know the English for two or three.

As for the missing foilage in the cut-out photograph, I admit it's an issue, and I don't have a final answer, however, when it comes to making photographic forgeries, the possibilities are endless. Does anyone doubt that somebody playing around with a photograph using state-of-the-art equipment could do almost anything he dreamed up?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, if you compare the photo of Det Bobby Brown with the cut out photo, you will see that they were taken the same time. No amount of photoshopping could get the foliage to match up, particularly as Os didn't have the Bobby Brown photo to match up to.

How could Oswald have cut out a photo which wasn't in his possession?

Afraid your theory has just been blown out of the water.

Paul,

...What concerns me more about you is that over the last 3-4 months I've watched you slowly and systematically portray Lee Oswald as the same disturbed, wife beating loser that the Warren Commission portrayed him as. The evidence you have presented to support your beliefs, other than your very subtle boasts that you are more intelligent that MOST of the members of this forum, has been the same quality that you have put forth concerning your proposition that Oswald himself "faked" the photos that formed part of the narrative that ultimatey condemned him.

The rest of your points can wait.

OK, Lee, it's good to know what points you consider higher priority. My position has always been that I believe the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald. I am aware that this Forum is divided on this topic -- some completely believe her, some completely disbelieve her, and others pick and choose what they will believe from what she testified.

Going by Marina Oswald's testimony -- the woman who spent the most time with Oswald for the last three years of his short life -- Lee Harvey Oswald was a disturbed, wife beating loser.

Now -- just because I accept that portrayal doesn't mean that I believe that Oswald shot JFK. I say that Oswald was innocent of the shooting of JFK. I think the evidence shown by JFK researchers for the past half century is convincing -- Oswald was innocent of the JFK shooting.

I cannot agree, however, that Oswald was an innocent choir boy. Just because Oswald was human -- he had flaws just like the rest of us have flaws -- this is not enough to convict Lee Harvey Oswald of the murder of JFK.

I was most disappointed in CBS correspondent Walter Cronkite when he preached his defense of the Warren Report on national TV, listing all of Oswald's sins -- he was a xxxx, a tempermental man, and a Communist sympathizer. And based on that list of sins, Cronkite concluded that Oswald deserved to take the full blame as the lone JFK assassin. I used to respect Cronkite, but after that performance I was ashamed of Cronkite. You don't convict a man of murder just because he's a sinner. It's beyond immoral.

That's what I'm arguing. Even though Oswald was everything that Marina Oswald said he was -- that does not make him the killer of JFK. Marina repeatedly said that she didn't have enough evidence to know for sure -- but based on the evidence that the WC and the FBI allowed her to see, it did seem to her that Oswald was guilty. Later, after she saw more evidence from JFK researchers, she reasonably changed her opinion.

The shooting at Walker on 10 April 1963 is a case in point. The one and only witness we have that suggests that Oswald was guilty of that shooting is Marina Oswald. According to her testimony, Oswald came home at midnight, clearly upset, and he confessed to her that he shot at Walker that night. She was devastated. That was the tear in their relationship that she knew could never heal. She wanted out -- but what could she do? She was pregnant in Dallas and could hardly speak English.

OK, I accept Marina's testimony. But that doesn't mean that I believe the story that Oswald told her. I believe that Oswald lied to Marina. He told her he was alone. IMHO he wasn't alone. He told her he was on foot. IMHO he wasn't on foot. He told her he buried his gun. IMHO he didn't bury his gun. But she honestly repeated the lies that he told her. She had nothing else to report.

Well -- there was also the matter of the photographs. She admits that she pressed the button on that Imperial Reflex only once. I consider that a fact. Also, she said that Oswald had made a photography book of pictures of Walker's house. We have some of those photographs, and Marina said she recognized one or two. Oswald took those, she testified.

Now -- I find it unfortunate that these photos "formed part of the narrative that ultimatey condemned" Oswald of killing JFK. In my opinion, these photographs -- and the fact (from Marina's testimony) that Oswald was involved in shooting at Walker -- should never be a part of what condemns Oswald of killing JFK. There's no direct connection between the two events -- the one in April and the other in November 1963. The relationships are far more complex.

Getting back to the point -- we have Marina's testimony of Oswald's confession, and we have the photographs of Walker's house and we have the one legitimate Backyard photograph and we have (as many readers also believe) several fakes that were made from one original.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Paul,

Marina also said she held the camera up to her eye to take the photograph, something you don't do with an Imperial reflex. Do you believe that she did this?

You omitted to discuss Lee's demolition of the cut out photograph. How did Oz make the foliage disappear in the cut out photograph? The cut out photograph appears to have been taken at the same time as the Bobby Brown photograph.

Here you go, Martin.

And that odd stance bugs me too. Not to mention the watch which there is little (if any) evidence to support that Oswald ever wore.

Strange way to stand

Some people might say he was falling over and the photo is just a "moment in time"

Egad, Sir, We never involved ourselves in "affrays'. (too busy trying to get a cop off.)