Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Ulrik

Members
  • Posts

    403
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mark Ulrik

  • Birthday February 21

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

807 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. Can also be borrowed here: JFK Assassination Eyewitness: Rush to Conspiracy (the Real Facts of Lee Bowers' Death)
  2. Some might say that the theory that the "Oswald acted alone" theory is wrong (or there was a conspiracy) is rather weak sauce. It includes little green men from outer space in the pool of possible assassins!
  3. Believing a theory (Oswald acted alone) to be false is in itself a theory?
  4. Can "Oswald didn't act alone" be considered a proper theory? Sounds pretty vague.
  5. Jim gets upset when I correct his grammar, but I think it's fair to point out that his co-author's name is Andrew (with a w) Iler, not Eiler. Btw, it sounds to me like he (Iler) wants to see the release of all JFKA records, which is commendable, but also would have liked to limit past inquiries into the JFKA by imposing courtroom standards ‒ in order to protect the rights of a deceased suspect. Isn't that somehow inconsistent?
  6. The first frame overexpose (or the somewhat misleading "flash" as some prefer) phenomenon was discussed to death decades ago. A certain newsgroup blowhard still likes to pretend that, since it's related to inertia, it must be constant and equally pronounced in every stop/start transition. Unfortunately, as shown by Tink Thompson in his Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination essay, the amount of overexposure depends on how long the camera mechanism has been idle. Zavada measured an (obvious) high decrease in luminosity between Z-001 and Z-002, and only a modest 10% decrease between Z-133 and Z-134, but this pattern is consistent with what can be observed in other parts of the film (preceding Z-001).
  7. Not sure about the book, but it's in the video The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (1998) by Jack White. 34:01 [WHITE] Well, what does the Z film miss during the break between frames 132 and 133? The third lead motorcycle, the Curry/Decker lead car approaching on Houston, turning the corner and leaving the Zapruder field of view, the limo and motorcycles approaching, turning the corner in an erratic manner and entering Zapruder's field of view and reaching the location of frame 133. None of these things are seen in the present Z film. But Zapruder said that he filmed the limo turning the corner. You will learn that he was correct. Frames are missing between frames 132 and 133. From Martin Shackelford's review "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" Rings Very Hollow: Jack refers to Zapruder's Warren Commission testimony, but Zapruder didn't tell the Warren Commission that he filmed the limousine turning the corner. He said: "I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street." (7H571). Nowhere is he any more specific, and as the film of the limousine begins, it is "coming in from Houston Street." Later (7H573), he is shown frame 185, and says: "Yes, that--there is Elm Street there--this is a corner." And "Yes. This is where he came in from Houston Street and turned there." He is clearly pointing out the corner in the image, not saying he filmed the turn.
  8. I'm just a simple country boy, so please bear with me. These "facts" are what others might call ideas or views, right?
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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!
  12. 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
  13. Why? Do you think Callaway picked Oswald because of anything Leavelle said?
×
×
  • Create New...