Mark Ulrik

Call me an old crank, but I'm not a fan of enumerating the RFKs the way Ben does. I'd like to think of RFK as more than an early version of his idiot son.

Rickerby?

Pretty sure it was a rhetorical question 🙂

NB! The current incarnation of Duncan's site doesn't go further back than January of 2018.

Discussion is not allowed in Gil's group, but at least it's unmoderated 🙃

I think Gil took over the group. Its sole purpose seems to be to increase traffic to his website.

Gil Jesus: Not the hero we need but maybe the hero we deserve. Who will be exposed next?

What is Gil's point, though? Does he think Oswald did it because he wanted to get caught? And what does it have to do with the Donald Sutherland scene in JFK?

You accept that the Allen photos were taken during the day, but not that the FWST was (if I understand you correctly)? Do you think Valentine returned in the evening to pose for the FWST photographer? Who then performed some darkroom magic to make it look is if the photo was taken during the day?

Sunlight is sunlight.

It seems to me that the sunlight in the Allan photos makes it less likely that the sunlight in the FWST photo is fake and more likely that it is real.

Your "obvious explanation" assumes an absurd level of micromanagement. And we haven't seen you try to explain the sunlight in the Allan photos.

Whatever it is that's causing it, there seems to be a pattern. I wish Craig Lamson were around to explain it.

I believe the correct quote is, "At least wait until next November before you shoot him down." https://robertmorrowpoliticalresearchblog.blogspot.com/2021/08/lbj-announcing-kennedy-trip-to-texas.html

Can also be borrowed here: JFK Assassination Eyewitness: Rush to Conspiracy (the Real Facts of Lee Bowers' Death)

Some might say that the theory that the "Oswald acted alone" theory is wrong (or there was a conspiracy) is rather weak sauce. It includes little green men from outer space in the pool of possible assassins!

Believing a theory (Oswald acted alone) to be false is in itself a theory?

Can "Oswald didn't act alone" be considered a proper theory? Sounds pretty vague.

Jim gets upset when I correct his grammar, but I think it's fair to point out that his co-author's name is Andrew (with a w) Iler, not Eiler. Btw, it sounds to me like he (Iler) wants to see the release of all JFKA records, which is commendable, but also would have liked to limit past inquiries into the JFKA by imposing courtroom standards ‒ in order to protect the rights of a deceased suspect. Isn't that somehow inconsistent?

The first frame overexpose (or the somewhat misleading "flash" as some prefer) phenomenon was discussed to death decades ago. A certain newsgroup blowhard still likes to pretend that, since it's related to inertia, it must be constant and equally pronounced in every stop/start transition. Unfortunately, as shown by Tink Thompson in his Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination essay, the amount of overexposure depends on how long the camera mechanism has been idle. Zavada measured an (obvious) high decrease in luminosity between Z-001 and Z-002, and only a modest 10% decrease between Z-133 and Z-134, but this pattern is consistent with what can be observed in other parts of the film (preceding Z-001).

Not sure about the book, but it's in the video The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (1998) by Jack White. 34:01 [WHITE] Well, what does the Z film miss during the break between frames 132 and 133? The third lead motorcycle, the Curry/Decker lead car approaching on Houston, turning the corner and leaving the Zapruder field of view, the limo and motorcycles approaching, turning the corner in an erratic manner and entering Zapruder's field of view and reaching the location of frame 133. None of these things are seen in the present Z film. But Zapruder said that he filmed the limo turning the corner. You will learn that he was correct. Frames are missing between frames 132 and 133. From Martin Shackelford's review "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" Rings Very Hollow: Jack refers to Zapruder's Warren Commission testimony, but Zapruder didn't tell the Warren Commission that he filmed the limousine turning the corner. He said: "I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street." (7H571). Nowhere is he any more specific, and as the film of the limousine begins, it is "coming in from Houston Street." Later (7H573), he is shown frame 185, and says: "Yes, that--there is Elm Street there--this is a corner." And "Yes. This is where he came in from Houston Street and turned there." He is clearly pointing out the corner in the image, not saying he filmed the turn.

Thanks for the explanation!

I'm just a simple country boy, so please bear with me. These "facts" are what others might call ideas or views, right?

And I notice that you ignored the "she thought" part. You seem to be more certain that it was Oswald than she was. Btw, I've always wondered how long it takes to catch a fleeting glimpse, but the number of words used to describe the experience is hardly a reliable indicator. The ostensible Oswald sighting isn't mentioned in the signed statement. Now what? You can save your sanctimonious BS. You loved the FBI report when it mentioned that (she thought) she caught a glimpse of Oswald. You even used it to pretend that the sighting was a lot more solid than it was. Vagaries of memory? The FBI report is dated 4 days after the event and the signed statement almost 4 months after. The remainder of your post is almost pure speculation and not worth commenting on.