Mark Ulrik

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

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

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

Another obvious candidate would be Chris Scally (although I'm not exactly sure when he started writing about the case).

As hinted at in my first post, it was not uncommon for the DPD to create copies and for each copy to lead its own separate live, with some notations being added later and possibly by different people. I did a search for the term "form" on the UNT site, and these copies of the same CSS form were the first hits: These appear to be (1) the original form with # and release info added after copies were created, (2) a carbon copy with # added, and (3) a Xerox copy of (2). There are no date or signature discrepancies here, so it may not be the greatest example, but I think it shows an inclination by the police to treat these copies as working documents rather than untouchable evidence. Btw, the exhibit after CE 1952 is an FBI report dated 6/10/64, so assuming the WC received the copy of the fingerprint report about the same time, there was plenty of time for Day to forget dates, etc.

Thank you. Yes, the DPD obviously kept the original (with the colorful ink).

You're among friends, so there is no need to shout. Why don't you use a normal font size like the rest of us?

That's an interesting topic in itself. You were probably more thorough, but I also came up empty with the MFF searches I did to try to find out how CE 1952 entered the record. PS: The GIF in my previous post was made before I realized that you have a similar one on your website. I think mine is slightly higher quality, though.

The colored ink in the UNT scan suggests that it's the original document, which would make the WC exhibit a copy, no? I'm just brainstorming here, but is it unreasonable to suspect that the DPD may have had a habit of generating extra copies for misc. purposes (or just in case the original got lost) and that notations may sometimes have been added later when memories were no longer fresh? I think I've seen variants of other documents with similar discrepancies on the UNT site. The wider "Oswald" in CE 1952 is peculiar, though, but can a copying artifact be ruled out? Perhaps someone kicked the Xerox machine. Btw, forging a copy seems a bit reckless when the original still exists, and if the CE is a forgery then why not change the 3-15-64 date as well? Also, why change the whole date (and time) when a single digit is enough?

This rings a bell. For a while now, Gil has been taunting an a.c.jfk poster who goes by the name of Chris/Christopher by calling him Chrissy/Christina. The justification being some misogynistic nonsense that doesn't bear repeating. Then, about a month ago, he began floating the idea that "Chrissy" was actually Bill Brown who posts here and a few other places. It's not clear how this new theory deals with the question of gender, but I sure look forward to see Gil's evidence either way.

Thane Eugene Cesar - The guy who was the likely assassin. Michael was probably referring to William Barry (a former FBI agent). Rafer Johnson og Rosey Grier were also part of the entourage, of course, albeit in a less official capacity. Cesar was one of several security guards hired by the hotel to work crowd control and happened to get assigned to the pantry area where the shooting took place.

I think you forgot about the film showing that Johnny's hand never went into the cookie jar.

Perhaps the effect he was hoping for.

I suspect Studebaker's print was just more "contrasty". Notice how the number on the tape stands out, while the circled dent is close to indiscernible.

This can also be found on page 628 of the WR (as mentioned above). You conveniently ignore that Kelley's account contradicts the idea that Fritz had foreknowledge of the BYP. PS: Why do you always use a much larger font than everyone else?

Turn to page 628 of the WR. According to Inspector Kelley (USSS) the question of the location of the backyard came up during a later interrogation session. We seem to have conflicting accounts of the timing. Whose is supported by other evidence? PS: Why do you always use a much larger font than everyone else?

If you take a sufficiently low-quality image and "enhance" it enough, you can prove almost anything.

Apologizing to Gary Murr would also seem appropriate.

I'm not crazy enough to rule out the possibility that there could be more than one C2766 rifle, but (as you admitted earlier) actually locating the others is another matter. Yet you believe that a private citizen like Lattimer was somehow able to. How do you explain this apparent contradiction?

And I pointed out that they didn't pan out. Please. You're making it sound like I was sending you and Gil on a wild-goose chase. Gil was one who made the claim that multiple C2766 rifles exist – which is only possible if you pretend that 2766 is the same as C2766 and that Lattimer's error (which he admitted) wasn't really an error. Or do you and Gil believe that an individual citizen like Lattimer had the "investigative power" to do what no one else has ever accomplished?

Plausible deniability would be my guess.

Nevertheless, only one Carcano with the serial number C2766 (number part "2766" and prefix "C") is known to exist. Had Lattimer actually owned a C2766, it seems likely he would've realized it was a kind of a big deal, so why only mention it in passing? As he later told a curious researcher, it was simply an error that went unnoticed until the book was printed and it was too late to do anything about it.

You keep recycling claims like this despite knowing full well that there has never been more than one documented C2766 rifle. Why?

If you want to use these ads as an indicator of when the 40" rifles came into stock, you should at least take into consideration that magazines are typically postdated. An August issue will likely hit the stands in (early) July. There's also such a thing as deadlines for reserving ad space and submitting artwork. What were these deadlines for the previous issue? May something?

What exactly are you accusing Shenon of here?