Mark Ulrik

I've noticed a few occurrences of "advanced knowledge" and now also "advanced thought" in your posts today. Don't you mean "advance" (as in "advance payment" or "advance ticket sale")? I'm not a native English speaker, so perhaps I'm just going crazy here.

I rest my case.

I'm sorry, but the issue is that you were using the HSCA interpretation of the photo in support of your own. And now that you've realized your mistake, you're trying to move the goalpost by invoking Humes. That's not very sportsmanlike of you.

What did I claim that was incorrect? Please be specific. It seems to me that you were the one using the HSCA interpretation of the photo in support of your own (although they're diametrically opposite).

Sure. Let's begin with one of yours: "Black and white photograph No. 17 and color transparency and print No. 44 are closeups of the margins of the fracture line in the right frontoparietal region after reflection of the scalp. On the margins of this fracture line is a semicircular defect which appears to be beveled outward, although the photograph is not in sharp focus." (7 HSCA 118) There is also Baden's public testimony: "The photograph [referring to JFK Exhibit F-60] shows the front right part of the skull of the President, and the semicircular defect that I am pointing to corresponds with the black dot present on the previous exhibit. This is a portion of a gunshot wound of exit as determined by the panel because of the beveling of the outer layer of bone visible in the photographs, which is also described in the autopsy report." (1 HSCA 247-8) Clear enough for you?

Your interpretation of that HSCA quote is quite creative, but they concluded, rightly or wrongly, that it was the front of the head in the foreground (consistent with the scalp having been reflected down over the face).

Thanks. But how does the specimen jar (if that's what it is) fit into this?

Pat, I watched your video* and wondered exactly what your current stance is re: orientation, drainage hole, specimen jar, etc. Can it be summed up in a neat graphic? *) I added the overlay in the green frame to a screenshot below.

This reminds me of a discussion I had in another forum years ago. There was a poster who through he had struck gold at the MFF site when he found mentions of a "US Defector Program" apparently run by the CIA. When I found out that it was also called the "US Defector Machine Program," it became clear that it was a computer system used for collating data on known defectors. It was clear, when viewed in context, that being "considered for the program" didn't mean that you were going to be recruited for some kind of false defector program. The other guy didn't like that and refused to agree with my interpretation, but c'est la vie.

The guy in the photo seems to have an overbite, so perhaps Robert is a better candidate than Lee.

Apart from the idea that Oswald used the shirt in a half-assed attempt to "wipe down" the rifle, isn't it plausible that he simply used it for padding to make the bag he brought to work less "noisy"? That would also account for the shirt having rubbed against the stock of the rifle. I don't remember reading anything about where the shirt was supposed to have been kept, so could it have been in the Paine garage?

Not a biggie, but you're quoting Hoch.

What is your theory about the cartridges? And how can you be sure he didn't buy (or steal) more than four?

Here's a complete PDF of the 3rd printing: ratical.org. it seems to be identical to my (physical) 2nd printing which doesn't have an appendix. The PDF with missing pages on archives.org and Robert Morrow's website is of the 6th printing (with appendix).

Gotta love the self-righteous rhetoric. My eyesight also isn't what it used to be, but that's my problem to deal with. I've found glasses (and sometimes keyboard shortcuts) to be helpful when I need to read the fine print. But, hey, perhaps I'm wrong and Gil is right, and we should kindly ask the forum admin to raise the default font size by a visually pleasing 50 %.

No, it makes posts harder to read and looks incredibly ugly. You're punishing the rest of us because you have a problem.

I'm not suggesting that Frazier was directly lying about the length of the bag. That would have required a higher level of certainty on his part than was likely the case. But the thought of having had the murder weapon in your car wouldn't have made most people feel all warm and fuzzy inside, so there could be all kinds of psychological reasons for "underestimating" the length. The problem with Brennan is that there's no real way of knowing if he was being deceptive when he refused to ID Oswald, or later when he explained his reasons. I tend to think that he really wasn't too happy about being the key witness and feared that Oswald had confederates still at large that might come after him and his family. (Ironically, the world's first CT doesn't seem to get much sympathy from other CTs.)

Or you remember seeing an unusually long paper bag, but won't admit (even to yourself) how long it likely was, out of fear that it would get you in trouble (or perhaps to subconsciously alleviate a sense of guilt for not having prevented the crime).

I wasn't suggesting that anything was "switched". In many countries, including Russia, it's customary to wear your wedding ring on your right hand. I don't think I've seen any photos of Oswald wearing his wedding ring on his left hand (or his MC ring on his right). Have you? I'm not really sure what you're saying here. If I were suggesting anything, it would be that the wedding ring may be harder to discern in the "A" photo due to lack of shading. That strikes me as kind of ironic, Jim.

Wedding ring on right hand and Marine Corps ring on left.

Apparently, you must think they made the same "funny mistake" twice: CE 718 Studebaker Ex C

President GHW Bush doing a double: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PPP-1992-book2/html/PPP-1992-book2-doc-pg1446.htm [video] https://www.c-span.org/video/?31610-1/hurricane-andrew-disaster-relief (skip to 4:05 and 13:17)

Another sly reference to the JFKA? Probably not! In a 1970 oral history interview for the Truman Library, Nixon was asked for his opinion about a 1952 book on the Truman presidency:

According to Getty Images: June 16, 1966. [HQ]

Mr. Jesus, does the title of your video, "Wounds Ballistics Tests Proved CE 399 Was Planted," mean that you now consider it a scientifically proven fact that the bullet found by Tomlinson was indeed CE 399? I ask because you seemed quite skeptical only a few months ago: