Mark Ulrik

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

When I was researching the rifle, a number of other researchers from very old posts (like twenty yeas ago) mentioned that there were multiple DCA compilations. Some also described how the DCA was formed, and one listed who all the member were.

I know the film on the internet is wrong because there is no caption reading ~" Assassin's Rifle." Those who had seen the film, including Garrison, said that caption was below the rifle.

Could this be the right one? I see captions.

Garrison:

34 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

What language are these in?

Danish. We're 6+ hours ahead of US time, and apparently the news of the assassination arrived too late for the 11/22 afternoon editions.

10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

That is an interesting photograph. Thanks for posting. 

This seems to contradict Walker's statement that he thought neighborhood kids had tossed a firecracker into his room--it suggests the window was closed at the time of the shooting. 

From this photo, it appears the bullet did strike the rail (wooden bar) of the window, and was indeed deflected lower. 

The bullet then passed through the lower edge of the wooden bar, but also struck that portion of the glass pane that is inserted into the wooden rail. I assume that dark hole in the middle if where the bullet passed through. 

One would expect more fracturing of the glass than that, but hey, bullets do funny things. 

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/walker-oswald-and-the-dog-that-didn-t-bark

I wrote this a while back. Still holds water.

Here's a comparison between the window damage seen in CE 1006 and in later film footage.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Wow. I've never seen so many ill-informed posts in such a short thread before. Mind boggling.

That's my opinion.

Everybody seems to have one. Do you have the real scoop? Don't be shy.

4 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

I'm not sure what you mean by the "wooden screen" and "window sash". I would have thought both of these are the same things? Check out 5 minutes 50 seconds on this video. You can see the detectives flashlight reflecting in the bottom pane of glass indicating that the pane there is intact. I wonder if the assassin deliberately fired through the window frame as breaking the glass would have caused more noise: 

 

1) I don't know all that much about window screens. You should probably read Walker's WC testimony.

2) Look closer. The pane is not intact. I would've attached a graphic, but I seem to have used up my quota.

14 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

The glass there appears to be in one piece but cracked. Are we to conclude from that pic that the bullet clipped the glass pane, cracking it, but not actually breaking the glass pane into pieces?

Yeah, I think it went through the wooden screen first and then the window sash, nicking the glass. But I'm rusty.

4 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Very nice collection !

In the most popular Belgian newspaper no Zapruder scenes either, must be rare

Thanks, JP. It's not something that I've looked into, but I wouldn't be surprised if Life sold the images to lots of media outlets around the world.

Here's a screenshot I once saved from an interview with Walker at his home years later.

Just now, Gerry Down said:

That's the first time I've seen a frame from the zapruder film in a newspaper from that weekend - top right newspaper.

Well, most of the sampled ones are from 11/23, but that particular one is from 11/27.

I managed to find my old newspapers. Here are the front pages that I've scanned so far.

DropBox / JFK / Scans

Nothing too crazy. Some uncommon books such as Red Roses From Texas (both US and much more common Italian ed.). Manuscripts, newsletters, Cutler map. Life magazines. Vinyl records (with speeches, etc.). Danish newspapers and magazines covering the assassination. Nearly all of it is in storage, but I could take some pictures when and if I get around to it.

5 hours ago, David Lifton said:

I've said this before, and its worth saying again: yes, the imo stopped.

I interviewed the Newmans in 1971 (or 1972(.

But the best evidence  can be found in the Friday evening edition of the Dallas Times Herald,  O ne or more of the cycle escort said it stopped; and as researcher Tyler Newcomb pointed out years ago, I believe you can actually see one of the DPD cyclists with his foot down and firmly on the pavement. I always thought that Vince Palamara's tabulation of "car stop" witnesses was excellent.  DSL

Some of them were "car slowdown" witnesses, adamant that the limo didn't stop, so there's also that to take into consideration. The best evidence is, however, the films.

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

Chaney's  claim that he immediately drove forward after the headshot and informed Curry of the situation is corroborated by Hargis, Curry and both agents in in the backseat of Curry's car. In the Nix film however Chaney never rides forward.

I assume if you take out the limo stop Chaney's ride forward has to come out too as there will be no time for him to ride forward, stop at Chief Curry's car, and have a quick conversation.

The fact there are five witnesses to Chaney's ride forward yet it does not appear in the Nix film, supports the notion that the limo stop was removed.

You are probably aware of this, but Curry later told researchers that Chaney caught up with them about the time they reached the on-ramp to Stemmons. There's also the McIntyre photo where two motorcycles (one of them Chaney's) can be seen in the background coming through the underpass in hot pursuit. Some very illuminating discussions can be found in threads from 2010.

Supposed CIA memo LHO "was trained by this agency"

9 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Those doc's would be very interesting to find.    All I could find is this one alledg. LHO was CIA, well that' s how I read it, or am I wrong ?  It's terrible quality... if anyone has a better quality please post, so I can switch it in my files

Hi Jean Paul. That memo is a well-known fake (probably discussed in other threads).

20 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LHO also helpfully left his wallet at the scene with both his real and alternate ID, "Hidell," through which he mail-ordered the weapons he just used to murder people. 

No, the Selective Service card was found on him at the time of his arrest. It's hardly an outrageous idea for a man on the run to bring false ID. Sometimes it can help you avoid being arrested.

21 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

A white jacket that becomes tan.

.38 auto shells that become .38 specials.

An automatic pistol that becomes a revolver.

A cop killer who discards his jacket but holds on to the weapon tying him to the murder. At a time when police are looking for the killer of a brother officer who was reportedly on foot, he has $ 13.87 in his pocket but instead of escaping the scene by bus or taxi, he elects to avoid capture by fleeing on foot down a street crawling with cops. He furthers his chances of escape by acting suspiciously and drawing attention to himself. Then he figures he'll avoid arrest by beating the Texas Theater out of a 90 cent movie ticket.

Yeah, that's believable.

Who, in your estimation, was arrested inside the Texas Theater? If it wasn't Oswald, who was it, and what happened to the real Oswald? If it was Oswald, did he buy a ticket or not?

45 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Let me add a couple more to that:

This same man fled after killing a police officer and discarded his jacket while keeping the revolver that connected him to the murder.

This same man chose to avoid police by fleeing down a main street that had a heavy police presence, drawing attention to himself and risked arrest by beating a theater out of 90 cents, even though he had $ 13.87 in his pocket.

I guess it makes all the sense in the world to them.

Perhaps he discarded the jacket to change appearance and kept the revolver because he thought it might become useful later. How do you think he got into the theater? Do you have any evidence that he paid for a ticket?

16 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Wow let it go he explained it.   Geez.  

Oh, I intended to "let it go," but now that you mention it ... Yes, he clearly felt that using the YouTube feature to embed his video was tantamount to stealing it. It's not clear if he still feels this way, but he does seem unapologetic about the catty remark to DVP who did nothing wrong and even complimented him. I find this a little disappointing - that's all. Over and out.

6 minutes ago, Derek Thibeault said:

I agree with Robbie. He is the creator of the content, he should have the right to build the brand by getting clicks. I assumed his comment was a sarcastic joke. It probably did look like his changing was due to DVP, but that's just probably when he realized it wasn't directing to his site. I think we should assume good intentions. And like he said, just ask him what he meant - he cleared it up.

If RR is averse to free publicity, it's his privilege to refuse it, of course.

4 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

The owner of a video has every right to determine how that video will be distributed.

If the lone nutters are focusing on you, it's because they feel guilt that they screwed up. 

When they don't like the message, they go after the messenger.

That's what they do.

DVP did absolutely nothing wrong, so the tone of RR's response remains somewhat of a mystery (at least to me).

3 minutes ago, Robbie Robertson said:

Lol i think I just explained it’s not how I meant and your assumption of it being hostile. 

"So that’s how you get your footage" was just a friendly dig? Perhaps a smiley would have helped 😉

6 minutes ago, Robbie Robertson said:

I mean you could just ask if that’s what I meant, in hindsight probably should have crafted a longer sentence but I also don’t spend all day looking on the forums to write essays

DVP asked you what you meant, but I still don't understand why you were so hostile. Why were you so hostile?

1 hour ago, Robbie Robertson said:

Well that would be a assumption which is not correct, people get permission to use content or even a link I was unaware it wasn’t going to my channel when a link was embedded so I fix that on all sites it should direct to the channel.

"So that’s how you get your footage" sounded accusatory to me (but I'm not privy to every nuance of the English language).

42 minutes ago, Robbie Robertson said:

The embed feature is a automatic upload default YouTube has I’ve turned it off not because of you, I just learned it’s not focusing people to the channel it allows you to watch on the site but then that skews people from going to the channel and checking out related content.

That goes for all sites if they use a video it should be directed to my channel not watchable on other sites.

You seemed to be implying that there was something unethical about embedding your video, which didn't seem fair to DVP.