Ray Mitcham
-
Posts
1,867 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Ray Mitcham
-
-
4 hours ago, David Andrews said:
It would appear that we have turned into England.
Meaning what, David?
-
DVP How can you prove something didn't exist?
-
On 7/31/2019 at 1:59 PM, Lewis Reynolds said:
Interesting article about Manson and Vincent Bugliosi.
"...people who worked with Bugliosi in the D.A.’s office, and the cops, the majority of them didn’t trust him.
I found plenty of documentary evidence that Bugliosi procured false testimony, withheld evidence, and covered up information during the trial, and that law enforcement knew a lot more about the family’s potential for violence even before the murders."
Bumped for DVP.
-
2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
FWIW #2....
Typical Bugliosi bull poop. Burroughs was being asked about the second Oswald, not the first. He wasn't asked about the first one.
Dont'cha love the Bug's last sentence :"He didn't add that he was good at telling stories' Somewhat like the author no doubt.
-
I woke my five year old son and brought him down to watch the t.v. broadcast, so that in the future, he could say he saw it as it happened. At the time I don't think he was too impressed but now he says he was glad I did it, as it was probably the most important point in human history.
-
12 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
500 N Beckley is 7-8 blocks from the Texas Theatre. Plenty of time to walk there from where Whaley let him out and saw him continue South, and buy popcorn. As the guy in charge of the place said he did. Then again he said he saw one Oswald taken out the front, and another brought down from the balcony and taken out the back.
Whilst Lee was taken to Oswald's apartment in the Station wagon? Interesting theory, Ron.
-
Fine for me, Michael.
-
When did Whaley change his description of where he dropped Oswald off i.e 500 block at Zang and Neches Street, just where Oswald lived, to further on at "700 block", because all of his early statements, his Warren testimony and the cab manifest showed that he dropped Oswald off at the first location.
-
According to the Donald, in his Fourth of July speech, the British had air power in America during the War of Independence. in 1775"“In 1775, …our army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports it did everything it had to do.”go to 18.26 point in the video.Why weren’t we told this in our history lessons?Cheers.(Sorry Andrew, didn't see your post just above before I posted.)
-
12 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:
David it simply shows how the proportions of a rifle can be greatly distorted by a small change in the angle of the rifle to the camera. I believe this is the reason behind the different sizes of Carcano images from Dallas pd, FBI and others.
I disagree Chris, as the lengths of the both rifles are not the same in your comparison, they cannot be compared. The right rifle appears much shorter than the left one, due as you say to the photo of the left one leaning back at a greater angle than the right one. If you compare photos of the same rifle where both photos show they are the same length, then the relative points on two rifles must match.
Chris, despite it being further away from the camera, if you scale the right photo up till the two rifle lengths match, you will find that the other parts should match. (Because the ratios of each part to the overall length of the rifle stay the same whether near or far away.©Father Ted Crilly)
-
Jim, here is another rifle comparison, from some years ago. Something smells of rotten fish.
-
1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:
I do hope Jim D is doing ok. If he is reading this my best to him.
Ditto, Cory.
-
Chris, looking at the two frames, in both, the guy, with the hat, who is standing in front of the column appears to stay the same size, which wouldn't happen if the zoom was activated.
-
Just now, John Butler said:
What's a "Dougal"?
What happened when you tried the post shadow experiment?
-
1 hour ago, John Butler said:
Mitcham,
Do you and others realize your taunts and insults make me a sympathetic figure? Do you realize your behavior makes my work more credible to people when you can not reply in a fact based manner. And, have to resort to the behavior you exhibit. In other words your replies are counter productive and harmful to your arguments. Your replies are not based on reasonable argument but unreasonable despite in your desire to refute every thing I say.
Not taunts and insults. Just pointing out how wrong you are in your posts. And neither my or anyone else's behaviour could ever make your work more credible. Because you are usually totally wrong.
Remember the shadows of the posts? You won't even try the experiment i suggested as it will prove how wrong you are.
(Stand by for Butler, "I'm not taking orders from Mitcham.... as it would prove him right.")
-
15 hours ago, John Butler said:
Mitcham,
That is a poor visual presentation. In the yellow rectangle you have cut off the part of the woman in the tan coat with the white collar that would identify her. Why did you do that?
This visual will identify the correct women in that spot in Elsie Dorman and they are not the two women as seen in Z 101.
And, you can see the two women with their heads in a lightened version of that frame in the Dorman Mosaic.
This should be sufficient for you to see the truth. I don't intend to answer your tactic of a series of endless questions.
If this doesn't satisfy you then I can offer you no further help.
They are not a series of endless questions. They are an endless set of corrections of your mistakes.
-
1 hour ago, John Butler said:
Mitcham,
I think I gave clear explanations for what I was saying. Sorry, you didn't understand. I'll see if I can't point you in the right direction.
This is Zapruder frame 101. It is in the montage in the lower left section. These two women who I have named the Ladies in Black are not in the Elsie Dorman film.
They should be at or near the location of the two women, the one with the tan coat / white collar and her companion in the black coat. These two women are shown in the Elsie Dorman frame and the Elsie Dorman mosaic. They are also shown in the Zapruder film.
Let me repeat. The two women above who I have named the Ladies in Black (both are in black coats) are not in the Elsie Dorman film.
As I said, they are shown in the Dorman mosaic inside the yellow rectangle.
Here is another frame from the Dorman film the two women (again inside the yellow box)
-
21 minutes ago, John Butler said:
Could these be the two ladies (in the Yellow rectangle) you are looking for in Dorman, Mr Butler? One appears to have a white collar.
Mitcham,
No. Those two ladies there are not the ones I am talking about. The two Ladies in Black are shown only in the Zapruder Frame 101 in the montage. They are not shown in Elsie Dorman. The lady with the tan coat / white collar and her companion in black are shown in both films.
That is the problem. Which film should I believe?
You are making no sense. Please post a photo indicating with an arrow, the two ladies you mean, Mr Butler.
-
1 hour ago, John Butler said:
The Ladies in Black
This photo montage asks the question “Where are the Ladies in Black in the Elsie Dorman Film?”. They are shown in the Zapruder frame, but not in Dorman.
In the photo at the top of the montage we see two women. One is shorter and dressed in a tan coat with a white collar. She has a companion dressed in a black coat. Both of these women are shown in the Zapruder film and the Elsie Dorman film. In the Zapruder film you generally don’t get to see the woman in the tan coat’s companion because she is blocked from view. At times the most you can see of her is her legs. Dorman shows the two women at the end of the pavement where the grass begins going west toward the Triple Underpass. Zapruder shows them a little forward to the east of that which is perhaps just the camera angle of Zapruder.
The problem here is in Zapruder we see two women in black who I have termed the Ladies in Black. They are first seen in Z 57-58 and continue to be there until about Z 210. This is before the Zapruder Gap and then afterward. They are not seen at all at the location of the woman in the tan coat and her companion in Dorman. The Dorman frame and Dorman mosaic do not show the Ladies in Black at all. And, that is the problem. Which film is correct?
This can also be added to the content problems of Z frame 157.
Could these be the two ladies (in the Yellow rectangle) you are looking for in Dorman, Mr Butler? One appears to have a white collar.
-
6 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:
On 3/21/1996, the Assassination Records Review Board interviewed a medical photographer named Earl McDonald, who was a former student of John Stringer. When asked to judge the quality of the photographic inventory credited to Stringer, McDonald listed several complaints:
-There are no autopsy tags visible in any photos;
-There are no whole body photos in the collection;
-There is no photograph of the brain (at autopsy) immediately following removal from the cranium;
-There is no photograph of the inside of the skull (following removal of the brain) showing the condition of the inside of the cranium;
-There is no photograph of the reassembled skull;
-There is no photograph of the chest cavity;
-There is no extreme close-up of the back wound;
-There is no wide-angle view and/or medium-field view of the cranium viewed from the outside (to go with the extreme close-up in the collection).
When asked by ARRB staff what grade he would assign if he were asked to grade the present collection of autopsy photos, he said he would grade them “quite low,” because among other reasons, the collection was not comprehensive (that is, did not represent the range of views that should have been depicted from either a normal autopsy, or especially of an autopsy involving gunshot wounds)
([ARRB MD 228](https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md228.pdf))
I bet DVP would have awarded them a Best Dissertation Award.
-
Butler. can you not see the person, in the red box, in the trees in the photo below ? Are you just being obtuse or are you blind?
-
2 hours ago, John Butler said:
Mitcham,
I edit one of my posts to you since I realized I made a math error of 48 rather than 4.8. Old eyes reading a calculator is the only excuse I have. So, things now read as:
"Mitcham,
Glad to see you are using a data argument rather than insults.
I used two frames from Davidson's gif. These clearly show shadowed areas between branches as an anthropomorphic figure. This is what happens when you put together a .gif with frames set at .08. Elsie's camera didn't record at that speed. She recorded at 16 fps. This gives the illusion of movement particularly when the wind was blowing strongly that day in Dealey Plaza. Many witnesses commented on the strong wind that day. There was rain in the morning. The airport was covered with water in places as the motorcade left. There was a strong wind in Dealey Plaza noted by many."
This is frame 16 from Davidson's gif. It shows leaves in the shadowed area he claims is a man, a shadow man.
Mr Butler, no. This is the frame that shows a man. That is a bit further on in the gif. You even showed in your own post on Sunday at 3.42 p.m.
Do you never learn?
Note what Michael Clark said above.
"They are the only thing keeping toungues tied from an honest assessment of your “contributions”
-
6 hours ago, John Butler said:
Well Mitcham,
Are you on new medications or have some kind of medication adjustment? Your last few posts don't seem to be that coherent.
Unable to answer a simple question so you resort to personal attack. I'm not surprised, but I am sad.
-
3 hours ago, John Butler said:
Mitcham,
Glad to see you are using a data argument rather than insults.
I used two frames from Davidson's gif. These clearly show shadowed areas between branches as an anthropomorphic figure. This is what happens when you put together a .gif with frames set at .08 Which is probably to high at 48 frames per sec. Elsie's camera didn't record at that speed. She recorded at 16 fps. This gives the illusion of movement particularly when the wind was blowing strongly that day in Dealey Plaza. Many witnesses commented on the strong wind that day. There was rain in the morning. The airport was covered with water in places as the motorcade left. There was a strong wind in Dealey Plaza noted by many.
Butler, so it isn't a person, in your opinion? And a movie camera @ 16f.p.s gives an "illusion of movement" N.S.Sherlock.
A Catalogue of Anti-Conspiracy Theory Propaganda ?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Seems you have all forgotten No 14, DVP JFK Archives.