Mark Ulrik

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.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

But there is an old guard, most of whom are now deceased. Still, Cyril Wecht, Paul Hoch, Tink Thompson and Peter Dale Scott remain. And I would add Gary Murr to this list.

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.

51 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Upon further reflection it seems obvious the second form with the release date of 3-26 was a carbon copy of the first form...

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

43 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Call me stupid but I still don't get it. How can the curtain rods be in the Paine garage on 3/23 ( documented in 9 H 424 ) when the CSS form has them in the possession of the Dallas Police from 3/15 to 3/26 ?

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?

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, I tried to track down when the rods and this report were sent to Washington, and could find no paper trail. The FBI reported their existence in August, if I remember. But I could find nothing that indicated when and who sent this stuff to Washington, and how it came to be published by the WC.

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?

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

I agree, they may not be as large in number as they seem. The internet allows them to be one "person" one day and another the next. I'm watching one in this group who I suspect has changed his name. Another reason why I was pushing for a subscription to post and why the LNers were against it.

They wouldn't be able to hide behind fake screennames, fake pictures and multiple accounts.

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.

5 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

RFK was very careless with his security arrangements. He only had one bodyguard.

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.

On 8/18/2022 at 11:31 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

That's a non sequitur logical fallacy.

It's like saying that, since nobody has come close to demonstrating that Johnny took the last cookie from the cookie jar, the only rational conclusion is that he didn't.

Johnny still may have taken the cookie. And if there is any evidence that he did, that would justify the pursuit of further evidence or proof that he did. Even circumstantial evidence would justify it. For example, if Johnny is the only one in the family who likes those cookies.

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

6 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

This to me is a strange utterance that implies that he had no knowledge of the gun in the holster.

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.

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

And while we're at it, let's throw one more report in there for good measure. This one comes from the papers of Capt. Will Fritz and is a report by SS agent Thomas Kelley who was present during Fritz's interrogation of Oswald on November 23rd ( Saturday ). Kelley reports that at the 6pm interrogation, Fritz showed Oswald "blowups" of the photographs showing him holding a rifle and a pistol.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29106

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?

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

So my question is this: How did Capt. Fritz know about the existance of a photograph showing Oswald holding a rifle "which looked to be the same rifle we had recovered", almost three hours before the photograph was found by his detectives ?

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?

19 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

One of the problems I have with the BYPs is if you look at the holster in CE 133-A, you'll see the sunlight reflecting off the front of it. As one who has worn both, I can see that that's a holster for a 5 or 6 inch barrel hanging below his belt. The holster for a 2" snub nose is attached to the belt at the top and doesn't hang below it. The holster in the photo is not the same holster recovered from his room.

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

35 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

As a truth seeker, I need to resolve this in my own mind, so I've ordered the April, May and June 1963 editions of American Rifleman. I want to see for myself if the Klein's ad for April has the 40" rifle and if they continued advertising it in May and June or if the April ad was an error. I should have the mags in 7-10 days and I'll post what I find out.

Apologizing to Gary Murr would also seem appropriate.

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mark:

Like that one, an error, with the rifle in his possession.  😙

And somehow Tom Purvis' rifle number means nothing.

As does the 3 million MC rifles. 

Nice magic act.

 

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?

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I just gave you two examples which indicate the serial numbers repeated.

And I pointed out that they didn't pan out.

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The idea that say me, or Gil would have the ability to track down all the other ones, that is pure Von Peinism. How could an individual citizen, by himself, without any of the proper investigative power and aids do such a thing?  Its like asking, OK, if you think there was a hole in the back of Kennedy's head, dig him up and show it to us.  That is just nonsense.  As per Latimer, Gil showed you the quote from his own book.  When his fellow Oswald did it fanatics alerted him to the fact that he was hurting their case, he changed his story.

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?

7 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Yes I do have him on ignore and now you know why.

Plausible deniability would be my guess.

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The guy who owned Empire Wholesale Sporting Goods told the FBI that Mussolini ordered many arms factories in Italy to produce the MC rifles and carbines. With many companies doing so, "The same serial number appears on weapons manufactured by more than one concern. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not." (DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 83)

Nevertheless, only one Carcano with the serial number C2766 (number part "2766" and prefix "C") is known to exist.

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The late Tom Purvis showed this since he had one made in 1940 which had the number C5522, made at the Gardone factory.  Obviously they had to pass the number 2766 to get to that number. (ibid). Just do the math, all those factories produced about 3 million of these rifles. Before he changed his story Lattimer said he had one  with that serial number. (Martha Moyer, "Ordering the Rifle", JFK Lancer.)

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.

58 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

What about the fact that more than one rifle had the same serial number ? ( CE 2562 )

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

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

This evidence indicates that the Depository 40" rifle was not available for sale until August, 1963.

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?

54 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is Shenon for you.

The HSCA Found out about it through Fonzi.

What exactly are you accusing Shenon of here?