Mark Ulrik

How silly. There is no contradiction. Her later inferences are obviously based on more than direct observations and impressions at the time. The WC only queried her about the latter. Perhaps Cairns and others are blinded by their own biases.

This and other Willis slides are available in very decent quality on the 6fm website.

What's the source? I don't remember him going full-on CT.

These are readable at least: DEMOHRENSCHILDT AND WIFE (U.S. CITS) INTERVIEWED AT PORT AU PRINCE EMB FBI INVESTIGATION RE DEMOHRENSCHILDTS IN DALLAS

I forgot to mention that it's frame 313 in the comparison pic. A true blob enthusiast would probably have picked 317.

I think the deleted version may have been a little better than this one, but without the grainy texture evident in the scans.

I viewed the YouTube video once, very casually, and was a bit underwhelmed. When you paused it at (say) 317, the quality was clearly inferior to the scan that has been posted. This is a down-sampled version, right?

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-7b-more-pieces-in-the-plaza Like Officer Chaney, who said JFK was "stuck in the face," Smith was probably talking about the large wound in the side of the head but associated it with the front. Both clearly thought the shots came from the TSBD (area).

You're catching on. Another example is the earwitnesses. A large chunk thought the shots came from the front, while another large chunk thought the opposite. Is this proof of more than one shooter? Math doesn't provide an easy answer here either. Sounds can be very deceptive.

Probably not a great idea to look at these things as a math exercise 🤠

Sandy, Like Bill F, I think the cumulative approach should be preferred here, and I, too, get a probability of 1 / 83818 (rounded) by feeding the following expression into an online calculator. (50!/(40!*10!))*(1/2)^50+ (50!/(41!*9!))*(1/2)^50+ (50!/(42!*8!))*(1/2)^50+ (50!/(43!*7!))*(1/2)^50+ (50!/(44!*6!))*(1/2)^50+ (50!/(45!*5!))*(1/2)^50+ (50!/(46!*4!))*(1/2)^50+ (50!/(47!*3!))*(1/2)^50+ (50!/(48!*2!))*(1/2)^50+ (50!/(49!*1!))*(1/2)^50 So, yes, this shows that it would be virtually impossible for such a large majority of witnesses to independently and randomly give you the same answer to a simple binary question, but is that answer necessarily "correct"? Witnesses are not unbiased coins. In particular, they're susceptible to the same misleading impressions. They also talk to each other, read the same newspaper stories, are eager to please, impress, etc. How is the question phrased? Is it appropriately neutral (non-leading)? Is the interpretation of the answers free of bias? Tom G said it more eloquently, but this is far from a simple yes/no proposition.

True enough. Apologies for the randomness of this reply.

Hey, even native English speakers make blunders sometimes. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. PS: You completely misunderstood Jeremy B and even managed to work an absurdly stereotypical version of WC apologists into your response ‒ which was so nonsensical that you can hardly fault anyone (yes, including Jonathan C) for not being on the same wavelength.

Or maybe your "analogy" was lacking. Must our reasonable member have been living under a rock? Maybe he or she has watched the movie "JFK". Or been vaguely impressed by some documentary pushing mainstream JFKA conspiracy theory on YouTube.

I doubt that you really believe that this forum is run by WC apologists.

Sure, but not many are being actively promoted by forum members to the extent that H&L is.

To my foreign ears, the term has always sounded derisive, but my dictionary agrees with you that it's rather neutral. The Education Forum living up to its name! To be frank, it's hard to think of "far-fetched beliefs" without the H&L theory. In a thread like this, it's constantly lurking in the background, and most of the participants in the "admins promoting such beliefs" subthread have voiced particularly strong opinions about it. Also, your "to WC apologists, all CTers promote far-fetched beliefs" remark was somewhat cryptic (at least to me). Was the intent to suggest that Jeremy B is at heart a WC apologist?

It was made by a poster who is a proponent of Armstrong's H&L theory, in response to another poster who clearly had that theory in mind when he cautioned against putting admin powers in the hands of people who promote far-fetched beliefs. Context matters. PS: That all conspiracy theories appear far-fetched to "WC apologists" is a sweeping generalization that seems a bit unfair. Some "WC apologists" (a derogatory term for people who generally agree with the conclusions of the WC) are former conspiracy believers, and the more candid ones will cheerfully admit to being unable to completely rule out that some sort of conspiracy was afoot in the JFKA.

You seem to be saying that the police framed Woodward for murdering one of their own, and that exactly the same happened in (at least) 18 other cases. Is that really what you believe? That all 19 were falsely convicted cop killers?

The JFKA bullet specimens never were in the possession of the DPD, and Curry was waiting for the FBI to provide details (as he had obviously not read the 11/23 lab report yet). I'm assuming that he was aware of the live round recovered at the sixth floor, so why say "steel-jacketed" to reporters? Did he hear it from someone else? Did the AP writer misquote him? Keep in mind that the journalistic angle here was not steel vs. copper but "steel-jacketed" (presumably meaning FMJ) vs. dumdum.

Egad. Whatever questions Curry may have had about the JFKA bullets were answered in a lab report dated 11/23 sent to him by the FBI. The idea that he was still waiting one week later for "confirmation that they were steel-jacketed" doesn't make a lot of sense. The journalist obviously knew nothing about the lab report but did have a doctor with expertise in bullet wounds who could explain the difference in behavior of dumdum bullets and regular "steel-jacketed" bullets. The misnomer "steel-jacketed" in place of simply "jacketed" may have come from either Curry, the good doctor, or the journalist himself.

Yes, Garland is not a particularly strong witness, but he may have been on to something. The only reason that Ben could think of why the first shot was perceived differently was that it was fired from a different weapon in a different location, so I suggested that only the muzzle needed to have moved. If the first shot was a miss, and a bad one at that, it seems plausible that the shooter would've made adjustments.

You can always count on someone missing the point completely. The first shot would have sounded differently if the muzzle wasn't protruding out the window. That's a possible explanation. It's also possible (if not likely) that the shooter switched to the iron sights after the first shot.

We could ask one of the ear-witnesses: Garland Slack, 11/22/63 affidavit, Decker Ex 5323, 19H495

Do these witnesses (Goldstrich, Salyer) cite publication of the "strange deaths" as the reason they hesitated to come forward? Not specifically, it seems, but maybe the interjected newspaper items could give you that impression. It would be mildly ironic, however, if (as suggested) early conspiracy authors like Penn Jones inadvertently aided the evil conspirators by contributing to a paranoid climate that kept people from talking.