Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Ulrik

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mark Ulrik

  • Birthday February 21

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    True crime, chess, collecting vintage comic books

Recent Profile Visitors

771 profile views

Mark Ulrik's Achievements

Rising Star

Rising Star (9/14)

  • One Year In
  • Conversation Starter
  • One Month Later
  • Week One Done
  • Dedicated

Recent Badges

  1. And I notice that you ignored the "she thought" part. You seem to be more certain that it was Oswald than she was. Btw, I've always wondered how long it takes to catch a fleeting glimpse, but the number of words used to describe the experience is hardly a reliable indicator. The ostensible Oswald sighting isn't mentioned in the signed statement. Now what? You can save your sanctimonious BS. You loved the FBI report when it mentioned that (she thought) she caught a glimpse of Oswald. You even used it to pretend that the sighting was a lot more solid than it was. Vagaries of memory? The FBI report is dated 4 days after the event and the signed statement almost 4 months after. The remainder of your post is almost pure speculation and not worth commenting on.
  2. I suspect that it comes from Gil Jesus. See the response to him that I posted in the Pat Speer interview thread a moment ago.
  3. Oh my! Arnold told the FBI on 11/26/63 that she thought she saw a fleeting glimpse of Oswald through the front door when she was standing outside to view the motorcade. This was a few minutes before 12:15 per her estimate. She told the FBI a few months later that she left the building about 12:25 (without mentioning a possible Oswald sighting). That's one heck of a solid 12:25 sighting you've got there!
  4. From Wikipedia: The memorandum is item 14 below. Index of /Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/J Disk/Justice Department of/Justice Department of JFK-King Reinvestigation
  5. Why? Do you think Callaway picked Oswald because of anything Leavelle said?
  6. Exactly. And the only reason to ask participants in a lineup about anything is (when relevant) to allow the witness to hear their speaking voices. There is no obligation to answer truthfully.
  7. I didn't notice at the time that I was being spanked, or even tickled, but they're doing quite the victory dance over at the old newsgroup. I do have a few additional thoughts on the matter, but currently not the time or inclination to express them properly. Maybe in a few days.
  8. What case? The case that you helped me make, by admitting that Oswald prior to 12:25 had not only plausible access but even legitimate, work-related reasons to make (unsupervised) visits to the sixth floor.
  9. The whole world had access, you say, while flatly rejecting the notion that Oswald would've had access prior to 12:25, unless I can produce a timestamped photograph of him on the sixth floor with the rifle in his hands. I find that peculiar and not entirely reasonable. You'll have to forgive me if I failed to answer any of your questions. Would you care to repeat them?
  10. Your point is moot if Oswald had access to the sixth floor prior to 12:25. Can you rule that out? Pointing out that we don't know when the rifle was assembled is not speculation. You're the one attempting to artificially narrow down the window of opportunity. Oswald feigning lack of interest? I said sixth floor, not building, but thank you for admitting that Oswald had access. How convenient. Thank you for admitting that Oswald had legitimate, work-related reasons to make unsupervised visits to the sixth floor at various times, including the morning hours of 11/22. I rest my case.
  11. It seems you have a later version of the article. The afterthought on scope alignment is absent in my copy; otherwise I would certainly have included it in my quote.
  12. I was actually relying on Griggs. From an article in the Dallas '63 newsletter (V1N3, 8/89) found on hood.edu:
  13. Good post! Btw, Greg's question inspired me to respond to Gil's post without realizing that you had already covered the same ground above, so apologies for that.
  14. But it doesn't matter how long it took if Oswald had access to the sixth floor prior to 12:25. What allows you to rule that out? When do you think the "sniper's nest" was constructed? But Zahm was talking about sighting in the rifle for the first time, not about needing to do it after each reassembly. It would probably have been ideal, but don't forget that the scope was directly attached to the receiver/barrel and wasn't among the parts that needed to be removed. It can't even be known if Oswald ever had the opportunity to properly sight in the rifle, or how much it would have helped, but it most certainly wasn't an option on 11/22. It's likely, however, that he switched to the iron sights upon realizing that the first shot was a complete miss. Which would tend to somewhat moot the argument that sighting in the rifle was an absolute requirement for success, don't you think? PS: I hadn't noticed DVP's reply to Greg where he makes similar observations, so apologies for the redundancy.
  • Create New...