Mark Ulrik

It's hard to disagree about the usefulness of the photos. I was relying solely on verbal descriptions, I think, but it's been a while, so I'm kind of rusty. Until I get my ducks in row, it would be interesting to hear from Dallas members who're more familiar with the lay of the land.

Greg, I don't have time to do much digging right now, but here are some links to the image sources--not necessary of the best quality or the exact ones used for my graphic, but close enough. Obviously, angles are different, and loose pieces may have fallen out due to fingering, etc. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1135#relPageId=669 https://youtu.be/K6IKhtf5yFk?t=41 https://youtu.be/PYI4PqtIyE0?t=2530 As for the shrapnel wounding Walker, Surrey testifies to the WC that he personally removed pieces of metal (sliced off the bullet's jacket by the sharp edges of the glass, one would imagine) from his arm. Reporters were also impressed that it wasn't a publicity stunt: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/yVrgWudl9V4/m/yVZ_eRUaxyoJ

Ouch! The upper one is from a CE and the others from Walker interviews found on (I think) YouTube, but not sure if the one in color is still online. Will have to look around and get back to you. Perhaps I still have my "work files" somewhere.

Actual measurements have eluded me. Do you think the deflection may have been downward?

No, the police report only states that the trajectory from window to wall was downward. However, the shot came from an elevated position due to the sloping of Walker's backyard, and the trajectory was already downward when the bullet hit the window. Nicking the upper edge of the glass pane must have caused a slightly upward deflection, just enough to miss the intended target.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "limo", but my point was that his not riding in the car with the President in Fort Worth makes the same thing repeating in Dallas seem less remarkable. Thank you for pointing me to the CFTR radio interview with McHugh. I made a transcript of the relevant portion (with a couple of passages highlighted by me): Thou Shalt Not Kill, Part 8 (1976 CFTR JFK assassination radio special) You indicated in your original post that it was a last minute change by the Secret Service, but it was clearly more of a political (or PR related) choice. I have to also respectfully disagree with your idea that the "removal" of McHugh is prima facie evidence of foreknowledge of the assassination. It seems rather circular to me.

Just exercising my freedom of speech and expression. In the spirit of the late President Kennedy, you know.

You're talking about Godfrey McHugh. What difference would his presence in the limo have made? What's your evidence that the SS removed him? Why do you call it a "last minute" change? He didn't ride in the limo in Fort Worth either.

https://www.youtube.com/@TheBehaviorPanel/search?query=sirhan

I'm sorry to hear that you don't find my criticism helpful, but it's news to me that I've done anything to get you thrown off this forum. PS: Not a fan of your punctuation style. I didn't know that it was considered bad form to encourage a fellow member to post his stuff here where it can be examined. Lucky me that this is an open forum where I can post whatever I want, but thank you for the heads-up.

I was merely pointing out the logical next step. Please feel free to click on his links if you like his posts so much.

Have you thought about not posting at all?

Just wondering about the lack of consistency. After all, you posted Part I in this forum.

What's wrong with this forum?

Thank you for noticing. Gil can get a bit salty sometimes, but I'm sure he means well.

In another thread, you were also confused by the word "effect" and thought it meant the same as "affect". Perhaps your English is not as good as you think it is. Not really.

I think you're misunderstanding "would" in this context. Oxford Learner's Dictionary: 12) would do something used for talking about things that often happened in the past SYNONYM used to When my parents were away, my grandmother would take care of me. He'd always be the first to offer to help. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/would Also, when the FBI tell you to report suspicious activity, the only sensible answer is "yes". That doesn't make you an informant.

The physical book was tempting but would've set me back $65 (all expenses paid) as I'm not a US resident.

So, it was an unknown YouTuber, not Trask, who caused the confusing by adding the "T"?

Dunno if you're aware of this thread, Greg, but it seems like a place to start.

Can you name the individual(s) arguing that the interrogation needed to be prolonged? It seems to me that the interrogators were making efficient use of the additional time afforded by the delay. Perhaps you misread this. He's talking about conducting (not affecting) the transfer. It's impressive what you can conclude simply from reading a person's body language, isn't it? But none of this would be necessary if your hypothesis about Wiggins being the primary Ruby spotter were correct. The Leavelle quote is wrong and quite misleading.

Hi

Maybe it was rather something like this? https://www.cbs19.tv/article/features/14-boxes-of-jack-ruby-records-become-public-next-week/287-477719764 https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/Knudsen83.txt In other words, according to Leavelle, Ruby expected to get off easy for having saved the executioner some work.

Me too. Can anyone (perhaps a mod) shed any light on what may have caused this?

I know what you mean, David, but at least in some cases, "advance" seems the safer choice. An expression like "advanced knowledge" can also be understood to mean "higher level of knowledge". GN (Grammar Nut) mode off 🙂