Mark Ulrik

57 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

whose mark is present? Looks like a ‘H’ above a ‘T?’

Cunningham's "JH"?

18 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

No, it is sworn testimony that the job paid better. But there is no sworn testimony that Ruth ever was told or knew that. This has been discussed before. The notion that Ruth purposely acted to keep Oswald from a better job for himself and his family is one of the baseless slurs that has an indefinite life, believed and believed and believed and believed, when there is no sound basis to suppose it is true.

You are aware that Ruth received a call from the Texas Employment Commission prior to the TSBD job, a message for Lee, for a very good job offer, and Ruth passed it on to Lee, and Lee did go and apply but was turned down at that place? If Ruth was so dead set against Lee getting a good job other than TSBD, why did she pass on that call to Lee? 

You have to stop bring so logical, Greg. Heads might explode.

31 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I want to post a picture of CE 573, obviously a copper-jacketed bullet (Walker shooting). 

But I have used all my attachment space, and cannot seem to free up space. I have traded notes with administrators regarding his matter, but Mark Knight said there is nothing he can do. 

Sometime back someone posted a note about first going into Google Docs or something along those lines. 

Any clues? 

I have no experience with Google Docs, but postimage (postimg.cc) has served me well.

5 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

And who said he buried it in the dirt? He could have buried in a brush pile up near the MKT RR tracks.

Whatever was used to conceal the rifle during transport (raincoat?) would also have helped protect it from the elements.

10 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Comes from a letter he wrote to Thomas Miller, a fellow inmate in the Dallas County jail.

The "n-a-z-i" he was talking about was Lamar Hunt.

I'm covering it in part 4 of my series, "The Conspiracy to Kill Lee Harvey Oswald."

I'll be posting it later today.

In the letter, Ruby suggests that Lamar Hunt might be helpful in locating an ex-wife of former congressman Bruce Alger who (if still alive) needed to be warned about LBJ having "the most horrible death imaginable" in store for him. This is followed by the "who would ever dream that the m*****f***** was a N***" rant. Doesn't it seem more likely that the N-word refers to LBJ than to Lamar Hunt?

Full transcription here.

19 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

You don't know the difference between being detained and being arrested?

Let's cut to the chase. You and Gil are faulting the police for not making sure that the Paines didn't make a run for it while they searched the garage. But what about before and after? Were they only a flight risk during the search?

35 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

If my home was being searched by the police during the investigation of any crime, I would not leave my premises until the search was over. This would be especially so if my home was being searched as part of the investigation of the crime of the century that had happened yesterday.

You seem to believe that guilty suspects are always uncooperative with police investigations, and that innocent suspects are always cooperative. Why bother having investigations and trials then? Arrest and convict those who are uncooperative, and let everyone else walk.

It has nothing to do with paranoia on the part of the police and everything to do with proper procedure. Assuming this investigation was on the level, at that point the investigators could not have possibly known for sure if Ruth and/or Marina or anyone else were involved or not. It could conceivably have been a Russian plot to assassinate JFK. The main suspect's Russian wife and her Russian-speaking housemate would therefore potentially be persons of interest. The alleged murder weapon had allegedly been in the same building with both of them just two nights before. Yet you think it's not unusual they made their Saturday shopping trip their top priority.

You seem to believe that the Paines should have been considered a flight risk. Then you probably also believe that they should have been arrested even before the Saturday search. Do you also believe that other Oswald acquaintances (such as Earlene Roberts) should have been arrested?

18 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

If the cops came to your house with a search warrant, would you leave them there and go to another appointment ?

It's not about the cops being paranoid, it's about keeping their own safe and conducting a legal search.

1) I guess it would depend on the appointment, but probably not. However, in this case, it was the second search and limited to the garage. The occupants had already spent some time around investigators, and perhaps there was a mutual sense of trust and respect. Also, it was the 60's, and RP may have been even more trusting of authorities than the average person. It also helps to know that you have nothing to hide.

2) Can't you keep your own safe and conduct a legal search without detaining the occupants? It seems to me that allowing them to leave would only make things easier for the investigators.

5 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Good points, Gil. The police allowing Ruth and Marina to leave the premises is significant. For all the police knew at the time, the two were part of a plot and could have attempted to flee. At the very least, they could have identified which items did or did not belong to Lee.

Mr. STOVALL. [...] we searched the garage and concentrated our search there. Ruth Paine came out into the garage and I told you Ruth Paine was the only one there awhile ago--I remember Michael Paine was in the garage. I think he came up after we got there--I'm not sure it's possible that he got there after we got there, but I don't recall, but both of them came out in this garage and showed us the stuff that belonged to Lee Oswald and Marina Oswald and showed us the stuff that belonged to them and they left.

Had RP and MP wanted to flee or destroy evidence, they could've done so between police visits. Why should the cops suddenly become paranoid and begin to treat them as suspects and flight risks? They were fully cooperating.

55 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

If it is a defect it’s also in this pic! Well spotted Big G!

Different auto btw

Better version here: Walker Exhibit 3

35 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Even if it is a hole in the photo  and not another 'black blob' it looks like someone was trying to obscure information.

Yes, Oswald.

Dallas Police Evidence Tampering?

10 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sean, Steve Roe, Mark, anyone -- where is the floodlight normally lighting that backyard that Surrey told police was inoperable the night of April 10? Is it that bright white circle in the middle of the roofline, middle of the photo? Is that bright circle a defect in the photo, sunlight reflecting off of metal in daylight, or a light that is on? 

It certainly doesn't appear to be a defect.

2 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

…..that isn’t there on the evidence photo….I smell a rat….

Or it could simply be the paper under the photo that is visible through the hole.

46 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

A problem in this discussion is that bullet trajectory hasn't been considered.

While I haven't found trajectory information for the Winchester-Western cartridges, according to this source, the trajectory is likely somewhere between 2.8 inches to 3.1 inches HIGH at 100 YARDS. This suggests that at 100 FEET, the bullet trajectory is still rising. So at 100 feet, the bullet will undoubtedly be higher than the point of aim.

Source: 6.5x52 Carcano (chuckhawks.com)

Yes, that's why I asked Steve for his opinion. The iron sights were apparently zeroed for 200 meters (not sure about the scope).

Good point. The smart choice would have been to place a sniper in a tall building and wait for de Gaulle to drive slowly by in an open car.

3 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Maybe the metal came from the screen frame?

Mr. LIEBELER. The bullet apparently actually hit a portion of the window frame before it went through. Does that accord with your recollection? 
General WALKER. The bullet went through the screen frame. Then it went through a portion of the window frame, and a portion of the glass. 

I kind of doubt that debris from the screen frame would have traveled that far. Doesn't it seem more likely that the metal came from the bullet?
But the reason I asked Greg was that he thinks Walker wasn't even in the room at the time of the shooting.

Greg, how do you explain the pieces of metal that were reportedly dug out of Walker's arm?

18 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Regarding this "downward trajectory" controversy over the years, people overlook the fact that Walker's had his window in the up position (was a warm day), and he was sitting down at his desk. If you look at CE1007 you can see the height of the window as relative to the man pointing to the hole.  https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0335b.htm

All the times I've been out there to the old Walker home, it appeared to me that there was a slight incline from the alley to the window, not much. 

The way that bullet hit the bottom of the window frame, I can see why it went on a downward trajectory. That's the way the cops described it in the case report. I have no reason to doubt their observation. 

Good stuff. The published images are somewhat hard to interpret, but the same police report said the backyard was an upgrade to the alley, and I've "always" assumed that (a) the line of sight from the muzzle to the head of the seated Walker would be downward, and (b) nicking the upper edge of the glass would tend to deflect the bullet upward. Do you think Oswald's aim was wrong because he failed to consider that the scope was zeroed in at a much greater distance?

2 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I have no idea. It just seems like it’d be pretty difficult if not impossible to determine the deflection direction without knowing the precise trajectory. Where did you get the information that the trajectory from the shooting location to the window was already downward? In the Walker Exhibits it’s tough to make out but it looks pretty straight if not slightly upward to me, and the photos do not show much of a slope at all to Walker’s yard. CE1007 taken from the ground outside the window in particular suggests that there’d have to be a pretty steep slope to the shooting location for the shot to have been aimed downward, and I can’t see anything like that reflected in the other photos. 

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.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Mark, the damage in the wood from the bullet looks different in all three photos. Are you sure all three photos are of the same window? How is the wood damage different? If the top one is a CE photo then it is legit but is the "lower" whitish area glass or wood, in that top photo, would be the question? 

There is a basic prior question, and that was was the glass window up or down at the time of the shot? Someone asked me if that room was air conditioned the night of the shot and I checked and did not know. I saw no police report confirming glass shattered by the shot though one police report said "wood or glass" had hit Walker's arm and a reporter wrote a news story with that conjunction changed to "wood and glass" had hit Walker's arm. That raised a question to me whether there was any shattered glass involved at all. Then came your photos. But now, how can it be known all those photos are of the same wood damage and same window, since they look different?

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

2 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Thanks for this Mark. Whether the bullet trajectory actually was deflected I doubt is known, but that it could have been deflected slightly upward (or downward), either way, not necessarily only upward as per Benjamin's article and also my article (https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1497), is prima facie demonstrated from your photo showing the bullet passing through the edge of glass, not only wood. I will be correcting my paper on that point, thanks. Can you say your source for the photos? 

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.

3 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Do you have a diagram or any photographs demonstrating that the trajectory from the shooting location was actually downward, and/or that the bullet was or could have been deflected upward? “Nicking the upper edge of the glass pane must have…” isn’t very convincing. 

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

13 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Actually, the shot fired at Walker struck a window pane and was deflected lower, and towards Walker.

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.

9 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

First of all, the limo wasn't used in either Houston or Fort Worth.  They used regular Lincoln convertibles. In fact, the Lincoln convertible they used for the President was on loan from professional golfer Ben Hogan.

Second, whether or not he was in those cars has nothing to do with his being moved at Love Field. McHugh admitted he was repositioned in the Dallas motorcade.

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.

10 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

( From Vince Palamara )

General Godfrey McHugh ( rode in VIP car )--- was asked to sit in a car farther back in the motorcade, rather than "normally, what I would do between the driver and Secret Service agent in charge of trip" ( 1 ) he admitted this was "unusual". ( 2 )
"Ordinarily McHugh rode in the Presidential limousine in the front seat. "
This was the first time he was instructed not to ride in the car so that "all attention would be focused on the President to accentuate full exposure." ( 3 )

Finally, his removal from the middle of the front seat is prima facie evidence that those who moved him were aware that shots were going to be fired from in front of the limo and sought to keep him out of the line of fire.

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):

Quote

[Host] The President's top aide, Brigadier General Godfrey McHugh, would not, as he usually did, ride in the front of the limousine. Today, he, too, would sit further back in the parade. In late 1975, McHugh recalls why the White House wanted it that way.

[McHugh] The first time, they were discussing how the people would be seated in the car to give the President full exposure. They felt that, if the Dallas people saw a young president and his wife, and Connally and his wife, they would warm up to them, and it would be helpful, politically, to the President. So they asked me to ride in a car in the back instead of, as normally I would do, in the front seat between the driver and the Secret Service man in charge of the trip. I asked them why they felt that, and they said, well, this is not a town very friendly to the President, but he can win them over, and we know that it's going to be a beautiful, ah, trip that he will enjoy, they will enjoy seeing him, and that's the way we'd like to do it. And the Secret Service and everyone agreed to it, and of course I was not going to argue with them.

[Q] This was, in your mind, unusual, but under the circumstances you felt that it was understandable?

[McHugh] That's exactly what I thought.

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.

56 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

You’re trying to instigate another diversionary dance “around the mulberry bush” – a debate which has probably already been had many times previously – which is irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

As I said already, this is how internet forums about the JFK assassination have been sabotaged for decades by disruptive posters either by design or through ignorance of how rational discourse should proceed.

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