Mel Ayton, R.I.P.

[Fred Litwin]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/mel-ayton-r-i-p

Mel Ayton, R.I.P.

I was saddened to hear of the death yesterday of Mel Ayton. His books on the JFK and RFK assassination were essential. The last email I received from him was in July when we were discussing his appearance on my podcast.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Terrible news-excellent researcher and author.

[Benjamin Cole]

Mel Ayton performed excellent work on the RFK assassination.

Fortunately, Ayron's writing survives.

Unbelievably, anti-Semitic crackpots are trying to link Mossad to both Kennedy assassinations. This despite the fact it was a Palestinian who gunned down RFK.

Ayton's work is an antidote to such vile poisons.

My hat is off to Ayton.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I know nothing about Mel Ayton as a person, but I can say that his research was badly flawed.

I'll give just two examples:

1. In his 2022 book The Kennedy Assassinations, he defends the WC's thoroughly debunked claim that Jack Ruby entered the police basement to kill Oswald via the Main Street ramp. This would have been a reasonable position until January 1979, when the HSCA volumes were published. The HSCA destroyed the myth that Ruby walked down the Main Street ramp to enter the basement. Ayton simply ignored the HSCA's powerful case against the Main Street ramp myth (9 HSCA 132-146), probably because he realized that admitting that Ruby lied about how he entered the basement would cast serious doubt on the rest of Ruby's "spontaneous rage" story.

In his 2024 book Death to Justice: The Shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald, Paul Abott, arguably the world's leading authority on the subject, destroys the Main Street ramp myth even more thoroughly than did the HSCA.

2. Ayton committed an even more inexcusable blunder by accepting and defending the motive that Jack Ruby initially gave for shooting Oswald, i.e., that Ruby was emotionally distraught over Jackie and her kids and wanted to spare Jackie from the ordeal of having to testify at Oswald's trial. How did Ayton not know that this myth was exploded in 1967 with the disclosure of a note that Ruby himself wrote to his second attorney, Joe Tonahill? In the note, Ruby revealed that his first excuse for shooting Oswald was a fabricated legal ploy fed to him by his first attorney. The HSCA discussed the note in its report:

The committee also questioned Ruby's self-professed motive for killing Oswald, his story to the Warren Commission and other authorities that he did it out of sorrow over the assassination and sympathy for the President's widow and children. Ruby consistently claimed there had been no other motive and that no one had influenced his act. A handwritten note by Ruby, disclosed in 1967, however, exposed Ruby's explanation for the Oswald slaying as a fabricated legal ploy. Addressed to his attorney. Joseph Tonahill, it told of advice Rubv had received from his first lawyer, Tom Howard, in 1963: "Joe, you should know this. Tom Howard told me to say that I shot Oswald so that Caroline and Mrs. Kennedy wouldn't have to come to Dallas to testify. OK?" (p. 158).

The damning note was also discussed in numerous books published before 2022, some of which Ayton quoted (such as the books by Dr. David Scheim and John H. Davis). It was inexcusable for Ayton to be accepting and defending Ruby's first self-professed motive in 2022.

[Tommy Shanks]

It was inexcusable for Ayton to be accepting and defending Ruby's first self-professed motive in 2022.

It's much more excusable than your awful amateur photo analysis and bizarre Charlie Kirk worship.

[Michael T. Griffith]

It's much more excusable than your awful amateur photo analysis and bizarre Charlie Kirk worship.

You guys behave much like a cult. You exhibit a cult-like mentality when it comes to dealing with evidence that refutes or contradicts what you want to believe. You brushed aside my point about Ayton's two demonstrable egregious errors and responded with emotion-driven attacks that have nothing to do with how Ruby entered the basement or with Ruby's phony self-professed-the-self-repudicated motive for shooting Oswald.

I have no idea where you get "bizarre Charlie Kirk worship." I guess in your woke mind, merely pointing out that Kirk usually--not always, but usually--expressed his views in a respectful, patient manner, even when dealing with hostile radicals, constitutes "worship."

As for my "amateur photo analysis," if you're referring to the photo of Lt. Day carrying a rifle out of the building vs. the photos of CE 139, there's really no "analysis" involved, but just being willing to admit what is plainly visible and not visible to anyone with two functioning eyes.

If you're referring to my research on the backyard rifle photos, my rejection of the photos has been supported by a number of photographic experts, including Scotland Yard forensic photography expert Malcolm Thompson, Texas Tech University emeritus professor of photography Hershel Womack, forensic photo analyst Dr. Steven Jaffe, and former NSA photographic technician Brian Mee. In addition, as part of my research for my article "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos," I interviewed six British photography professionals:

* Mr. Konrad Mandl, a professional photographer and photo lab technician, and a certified member of the British Institute of Professional Photography.

* Miss Davette Johnson, a professional photographer and photo lab technician, and a computer graphics technician.

* Mr. Jerry Finzi, professional photographer.

* Mr. Mark Loundy, professional photographer.

* Mr. Arthur Kramer, a professional photographer who taught photography at the collegiate level.  In addition, Mr. Kramer also wrote a column for Modern Photography magazine for 20 years
called "The View from Kramer."

* Mr. Steven Newbould, a photo lab technician at the Harrogate Photographic Laboratories, Harrogate, England.

I'm guessing you haven't read my article on the backyard photos.

[Mark Ulrik]

As for my "amateur photo analysis," if you're referring to the photo of Lt. Day carrying a rifle out of the building vs. the photos of CE 139, there's really no "analysis" involved, but just being willing to admit what is plainly visible and not visible to anyone with two functioning eyes.

Those are surprisingly strong words, coming from someone who meekly bowed out of the thread that John Mytton started on the subject.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Those are surprisingly strong words, coming from someone who meekly bowed out of the thread that John Mytton started on the subject.

Mytton is a total quack who is immune to reason and persuasion. I have devoted countless replies to answering his nonsense, and after a while I stop responding because in his threads because I know I'm wasting my time.

You might want to check out my ongoing exchanges with Mytton in my thread about his blunders on the backyard rifle photos, in which, among other things, he claims that the differences in the background distances are "very visible" to the naked eye--yeah, never mind that the HSCA PEP could only detect them with computer-aided, high-magnification/microscope-aided photogrammetric measurements. As you'll see in the thread, I've asked him repeatedly to address this fact and to acknowledge his error, but he has gone silent on the issue, as he usually does when he's caught in a bald-faced blunder.

In one of his threads on the backyard photos, he actually said that once you adjust the PEP's parallax measurements for scale, they prove there is "massive parallax" in the photos, not realizing that the PEP's parallax measurements were already adjusted for scale. I responded by pointing out that the PEP's measurements were adjusted for the scaling distances to account for magnification differences, that this is plainly stated in the PEP's report, and that the scaling distances are even mentioned by name and given in the calculations. He has yet to acknowledge his blunder, as usual.