Ray Mitcham

As a matter of interest, what do you guys think caused "LHO" to drop his wallet? Was he involved in a fracas? If as stated, he just shot Officer Tippit, what would cause him to drop his wallet? It would need a steam shovel to get me to drop my wallet. Seems much too convenient for my way of thinking.

I assumed the footstep sounds are quite suspicious. They do not necessarily (given the context of the murder itself) have to have belonged to DeM. There are also what appears to be (possibly barefoot) footprints in the blood leading away from DeM in the death scene. They also appear to belong to someone who is a flatfoot. (DPD? )

Good question.Bill. Didn't some witnesses to the shooter say he had a white shirt on over a white t shirt?

Best of luck to you both, Kathy and Tommy, from this side of the pond. Stay positive.

Len, If de Mohrenschildt was wearing socks, he couldn't have made the sound of the ghostly footsteps. Somebody else must have made them.

Thanks, Ed.

John, Does anybody know with which camera Oswald is supposed to have taken the photos of Walkers house? Were they taken on the Imperial Reflex or the Minox? And, incidentally, has the Imperial reflex ever been proven to be Oswald's?

Greg, just as a matter of interest, why would there be a loading zone in the middle of an underpass road? Loading zone for what?

In the gif, the man in the blue jacket moves leftwards towards the tan jacket man. Co-incidence?

Suggested further reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," by John Perkins.

Lee, an interesting snippet from the National Guardian later in the pages mentioned above.(Page 31) Comment by Milton Klein, whose company allegedly supplied the offending rifle. "I don't think that rifle killed Kennedy. Not because it's too slow or too fast. Right after the murder, the Dallas Police discovered a Fort Worth armorer who said he was the man who put the telescope on Oswald's gun. He said he drilled the holes in the gun for the screws of the telescope and that he mounted it. He showed the Police the invoice for the telescope and the work, and he recognized the rifle. "What is strange about this is that the gun was shipped from here with the telescope already mounted and the holes for the screws already drilled. Therefore, either the Dallas weapon is not the one I sold and Oswald ordered, or the Dallas Police persuaded the Fort Worth Armorer to issue a false statement. And if that's the case, why?" http://contentdm.baylor.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/15poage-arm&CISOPTR=46973&REC=3 Anybody know any more about the Fort Worth Armorer?

Do the maths Ray and then tell us how much movement you think you should be seeing in the verticals? Its really quite simple, the principle of the lever.... I will try if you can give me the relevant measurements. Regards

Quite correct Mr Lamson, I am unable to post image comparisons as I don't have the software on the i-pad I am using. However thanks for showing the above gif. I will concede that it does appear to blow my theory about the shadows, out of the water. I must try a few more experiments with shadows. But it also seems to confirm my contentions that the camera hasn't moved forward or backwards between photographs, as the parallax relationships between the verticals on the right and left of LHO haven't changed, as they should have if the camera had moved. Perhaps you can show me where I am wrong on this. As I have said previously, I'm always ready to learn. Regards,

Is he actually a "moving person" in the photographs? I would have thought that he was a "stationary person" for the purposes of the photo. I don't consider LHO to be a post but to be a person who is standing still LIKE a post. Maybe you disagree. You keep saying that LHO changes his position in relation to the sun but never explain exactly what you mean. There is virtually no difference in his stances in all three photographs.In each one, he is leaning slightly to his right weight on his right foot. If, the camera had not moved (you say it did) his shadow would be the same angle. If it moved in the direction you said, i.e. Back and to the right, the shadow would have changed in the direction that you said i.e. clockwise. It has changed the other direction, to anticlockwise. Poor old Ray would like you to show the tests that you quote. Regards,

I'll ignore the gratuitous insults. Wrong. I say the camera did not move forward, backward or sideways, not that it "never moved" Regards,

Back produces movement clockwise. Right produces movement clockwise. Glad to see your reply. So if the camera moved backwards and to the right (As in movement CE 133b to CE133A) Can you explain why LHO's shadow moved COUNTER -clockwise? Regards,

He moved is as good as it gets Ray. You can't measure it directly from the 2d photos. That's a major cop out, Craig. You are only surmising that he moved.(I'd love to hear the reply from a defending counsel to that answer.) So are you saying that the camera moved forward and the left AND LHO moved, or just that LHO moved, or just the camera moved? With your vast experience of photography perhaps, in comparing two photographs of a similar scene and time etc. as the yard photos, you could tell me what you think would happen to the shadow of a vertical post in the center of both photos if the camera moved forward and to the left in one.(or alternatively the camera moved backwards and to the right). Would the shadow appear to i) stay the same angle ii) move anticlockwise to account for perspective iii) move clockwise.? Regards, (Sits back and waits for "Which photo"- "Where was the sun" "What time was it" "How big is the post" "How far does the camera move forward" etc.)

duplicate post

I'll say it again. Depends on what the subject does in relationship to the sun. Perhaps you would enlighten me and show me how you think he moved sufficiently to alter the angle of his shadow by about 12 degrees. For example do you think he is leaning forward more in one photo than the other? Is he leaning more to one side in one photo than the other? I'd just like to know what you mean by "he moved"

Well Ray, its the PERFECT explanation and it describes the situation to a tee. Craig, you can go on till the end of time just saying that Oswald moved. What you don't describe is your opinion of how he moved and how the change in the angle of the shadow occurred. Now failing your ability to answer this simple question would indicate that you don't know. Depends on what the subject does in relationship to the sun. Perhaps you would enlighten me and show me how you think he moved sufficiently to alter the angle of his shadow by about 12 degrees. For example do you think he is leaning forward more in one photo than the other? Is he leaning more to one side in one photo than the other? I'd just like to know what you mean by "he moved". I say exactly the same thing to you. Regards,

Is this level of confusion normal for you Ray? Lets review again... I assume that both you and Jim mean the camera moved in relation to the background. Don't want you saying later "I didn't say the camera moved..." If that is the case how come the parallax view of the fixed verticals in the background hasn't changed? You never said the camera moved. You were questioning MY statement that the camera moved. Yes I know it was your statement. I said subsequently that I should have put the word "forward" in my statement about your statement. Poor Ray isn't confused, it's poor old Craig.

I'm afraid you've confirmed in the above post that initially, that I said "the camera moved" and I subsequently said that I had omitted to say the word "forward". You then say I did say I said it moved forward. Which is it Craig? The funny thing about this is that I was agreeing with you, for once, but then you go on to destroy your own argument. You mean you said that the subject "moved"? Great explanation.

You are quite right one on this one. I did indeed say that the camera hadn't moved. My bad. I should have been more specific by adding "forward". By the way, who mentioned Jack White? It was not 'your bad', you were just wrong. Let's review... Ray sez: "No, whoever was holding it, didn't move the camera. Just because you say so doesn't mean they did. If the camera had been moved forward, backward or sideways, the parallax view of the uprights in the background would have changed. (The relationship between the stair-post and fence post to LHO's right and the relationship of the edge of the full height panel and the fence posts to his left would have changed. they haven't.)" Opps, you do say "forward...your BAD indeed. The Argument is over Ray, the camera moved. That you are not happy with what you THINK you should see really means squat. The camera moved, thus ending that argument for fakery. Oh, what happened to your reading comprehension Ray? There is no mystery. I mentioned Jack White. Regards Wrong again, Mr Lamson. I INITIALLY (post 74) said that the camera hadn't moved. The quote above is much later. (post 122) Your bad there, I'm afraid. The argument certainly isn't over. If the camera moved diagonally forward to the left (Comprenez? or do you need taking by the hand?) then the horizontal parallax of the right verticals would have changed. It didn't. If you disagree then perhaps you could explain why. Just as a matter of interest, with your vast experience as a happy snapper, could you explain how,if the camera moved diagonally forward to the left, in CE133B, Oswald's shadow moved clockwise in relation to the shadow in CE133a, when according to perspective, had it done so, the shadow should have moved anticlockwise?

Problems with link

It's funny. I expected you to say that, so I asked my 15 year old grandson to look at the photographs and then look at what I wrote in answer to your query, He said he understood what I meant completely. Maybe it's not my written descriptions that leave a lot to be desired but your reading comprehension. You are quite right one on this one. I did indeed say that the camera hadn't moved. My bad. I should have been more specific by adding "forward". By the way, who mentioned Jack White? Regards