Mark Ulrik

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:

Dr. SHAW - The wound entrance was an elliptical wound. In other words, it had a long diameter and a short diameter. It didn't have the appearance of a wound caused by a high velocity bullet that had not struck anything else; in other words, a puncture wound. Now, you have to also take into consideration, however, whether the bullet enters at a right angle or at a tangent. If it enters at a tangent there will be some length to the wound of entrance. (WC 6H95)

Don't forget the wrist fragments. There is a lengthy discussion in Bugliosi's book, IIRC.

Sure: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=171

No one is claiming that Dr. Shaw was clueless. He was no doubt an intelligent man and a highly competent surgeon, but not the one in charge of treating the thigh wound and clearly mistaken about the bullet having lodged there. The bullet wasn't mentioned in subsequent reports and testimony by Shaw or others, so what is reasonable to believe here? That he overstated something he didn't really know, or that he (and others) were dishonest enough to cover up the existence of the bullet?

You seem to be arguing that (controversial) statements made by other doctors and nurses on other topics somehow make Dr. Shaw's statement about the thigh bullet more credible. I can understand why someone with your enormous bias would find it credible, but is there any real corroboration to be found anywhere?

We all have our biases, I'm sure, but that's not really what I was talking about, although I did point out that corroboration could also be in the form of other types of evidence (than witness statements). Gil failed to mention that "Oswald in the 6th floor window firing a rifle" is based on more than just Brennan's say-so. Gil did cite the Z-film as evidence of a limo slowdown, but only to counter "arguments" from "people" about witnesses who saw the limousine slow down or stop being either mistaken or lying. Has anyone, apart from Gil, ever heard of these people denying that the limo slowed down or accusing any of these witnesses of lying?

NB! Especially when corroborated by other types of evidence. Can you point to anyone foolish enough to have claimed the limo didn't slow down? You wouldn't simply make that up, would you? Sure, witnesses who said the limo slowed down (although "almost to a stop" may be overstating it) are corroborated by the Z-film, but witnesses who said it stopped are not. It's common, however, to see "slowdown" witnesses (many of whom were adamant the limo didn't stop) being lumped together with "stop" witnesses, as if the difference didn't matter. You're not in Z-film alterationist camp, at least, just trying to prop up a puny strawman. Everyone knows this, of course, but Brennan's observations are, btw, not without corroboration. Other witnesses saw what looked like a rifle barrel in the same window, cartridge cases were found below that window, and Oswald's rifle was found on the same floor. Also speaking to credibility, Brennan was quick to go to the police, and his story remained fairly consistent over time. Maybe "they" assumed it was some kind of rhetorical question that didn't require an answer. So, what is the right answer? How many limo stop witnesses "saying the same thing" does it take to trump one Brennan? You've been posting stuff like this in the newsgroups for years, and people keep pointing out why it's weak sauce.

Maybe we're getting a bit melodramatic here. Can we please stop exaggerating what Jonathan did? These attacks on his character are very unpleasant to watch.

But the notion of a dark and mysterious conspiracy is also strangely appealing, isn't it?

Or you could mind your own business.

Here's a novel idea. Why not create a single Gil Jesus YouTube thread for all your uploads?

I'm not sure it's such a good example of an argument from incredulity. At least not a fully fledged one. There is a difference between "This doesn't seem plausible to me; does it seem plausible to you?" and "This doesn't seem plausible to me; therefore it MUST be FALSE." Let's try to imagine that someone, perhaps a CT, would attempt to argue that, surely, ALL these witnesses CAN'T have been wrong about hearing shots from the GK, observing the limo come to a full stop, observing a large BOH defect, etc. Would it be fair to characterize those as arguments from incredulity, in your learned opinion?

That's not all you do. You also use a much bigger font than anyone else, making your longer posts rather painful to read.

Interesting. Where did he mention that?

I would tend to think of it as a somewhat lesser crime when we're talking about out-of-print (and not likely to be reissued) works, as is the case with many JFKA books. One of the members here used to scan rare books and post links to his PDF repository. I also recall a lawyer posting in Duncan MacRae's forum doing something similar.

From my comic book collecting days:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/search/?q="elizabeth cole"

Yes, sir! It works again now 😀

Your image links are not working on my laptop anymore. My iPhone is 10 years old, so I'm not even gonna check there.

Links working fine for me.

Sounds mildly amusing to me.

Perhaps you could think of it as countering the counter-myth.

Let's hear your fairy tale for a change. How do you think he got from the TSBD to the TT where he was arrested?