Mark Ulrik

Are we allowed to freely speculate on the moral and mental state of other members now?

If that's the case, I have some suspicions of my own.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I do not call you an old crank. I like the enumeration for clarity and brevity. Like the JKFA or TSBD6.

Surely, RFK is clearer and briefer than RFK1?

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?

54 minutes ago, Chris Scally said:

Probably because she wasn't there in Dealey Plaza, Kevin! Why do you think she was present?  

Pretty sure it was a rhetorical question 🙂

56 minutes ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

If anyone has contact info for Greg Burnham, pls let me know and I'll ask him. Otherwise I don't think any old forums exist like Rich's or Duncan MacCrae where we could do a search and come up with those names. That was all 15+ years ago and my memory isn't quite that good.

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 🙃

1 hour ago, Denis Morissette said:

My request to participate to alt.conspiracy.jfk.research has just been declined. The cover-up continues…

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?

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Nice one Gil, about not paying for the ticket when he had 10 x more than enough to pay for it.

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?

2 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said:

"Sunlight is sunlight?" That's your argument? That's why you think the Allen photos prove the FWST photo to be genuine?

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?

3 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said:

You mean you can't see the difference? Or do you mean something else?

Sunlight is sunlight.

4 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said:

"Absurd level of micromanagement?" They murdered the president. I'm talking about the Fort Worth Star-Telegram photo, not the Allen photos. The sunlight in the Allen photos is real. The sunlight in the FWST photo is fake.

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.

30 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said:

I don't see why people are so resistant to the most obvious explanation here, yet they accept the most bizarre conclusions elsewhere.

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.

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

And Lyndon Johnson visited Dallas in April 1963 and was reported in a Dallas newspaper saying (as metaphor) to be loyal to the President (Kennedy), likening Kennedy (whom he privately hates) to the pilot of an aircraft flying over ocean waters upon whom the passengers depend, and therefore  "don't shoot him down until November".

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

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

On the death of Lee Bowers...

file:///C:/Users/15136/Downloads/JFK-Assassination-Eyewitness_-R-Anita-Dickason-5%20(1).pdf

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!

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Clever response!

And true.

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

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

So according to Bill Brown, if 65% of people believe Oswald didn’t act alone, the most popular theory is that Oswald acted alone. Let that sink in for a minute. 

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

On 4/13/2024 at 5:27 AM, James DiEugenio said:

On their latest That's Enough Outta You, they have one of the co authors of The JFK Assassination Chokeholds, Andre Eiler.

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).

2 hours ago, George Govus said:

Good on you, trying to nail that down. Unfortunately, I don’t recall. Could be it’s in the book Fetzer edited. I can check that.

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?