Mark Ulrik

37 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Nice compilation. 

Aynesworth's earliest recollections also suggest the first shot was different in pitch and volume than the succeeding shots, which is what many (most?) witnesses said. 

I can't think of a reason for that, except that different weapons at different locations were the source of the audible gunshots.

There may also have been inaudible gunshots, or shots that were nearly simultaneous, but heard as one shot by witnesses. 

We could ask one of the ear-witnesses:

Quote

When the sound of this shot came, it sounded to me like this shot came from away back or from within a building. I have heard this same sort of sound when a shot has come from within a cave, as I have been on many big game hunts.

Garland Slack, 11/22/63 affidavit, Decker Ex 5323, 19H495

11 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Witnesses describe how fear due to publication of the "strange deaths" caused them to hesitate to come forward with information that was contrary to the official narrative.

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.

14 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

The point I'm trying to make is that all of these "mistakes" allowed them the opportunity to tamper with the evidence.

By not crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's, there was plenty of opportunity to substitute evidence.

I disagree with the argument that these practices were not used in 1963.

They knew enough to photograph the three shells as (allegedly) found on the sixth floor.

Why didn't they photograph the gunsack ? Why didn't the photograph the jacket under the car ?

Why did they dust the three shells TWICE for fingerprints ? Why did they dust two sets of curtain rods for fingerprints ?

They knew enough to secure the crime scene on the sixth floor. Why didn't they secure the Tippit murder scene ?

You're talking ranking officers at the scenes, Lieutenants and Captains, and they don't know what they're doing ?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

You could at least have tried to establish a proper baseline before accusing the police of nefariously deviating from their usual practices. Apart from that, it's probably safe to say that no one was prepared for the investigation of the century.

The name "Lee Oswald" is easy enough to spot. Dunno about the rest.

I would've been more inclined to agree with you if the smallest diameter of the wound had been 7 mm, but it seems to have been only 4 mm.

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

In the group photo of displayed items spread over the floor showing that photo with a mild form of damage.

In the group photo, the damaged photo is lying on top of what looks like some envelopes. Wouldn't we expect them to be visible through the hole?

9 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

In the picture from the bulk evidence, if you enlarge it you can see the edges of a tear that's the same as the tear in the second photo. Difference is the underground, in the first a light coloured page was underneath it.   I have seen that blow-up somewhere, just don't remember the website 

Perhaps here?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10505#relPageId=46

(and zoom in as much as you can)

44 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Out of curiosity, how did the hole in the Walker backyard photograph get there, if it was not there, when the FBI obtained the photograph? 

Well, Marina had no reason to lie about this, but memory can play tricks, and perhaps the FBI showed her a second gen copy where the damage was less apparent. In an evidence photo in Curry's book, it looks like the license plate was already missing.

22 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

It looks like the FBI engaged in evidence tampering. To what end? 

It doesn't look like the FBI tampered with the photo to me, so I'm probably the wrong guy to ask.

44 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

That is a possibility, although very low probability  

The license plate, if identified, might allow someone to pinpoint when LHO was there.  That is, authorities could ask the owners of the vehicle, "When were you visiting Walker?" 

On the other hand, perhaps the license plate would reveal the photo as having been taken after the Walker shooting. That is, the vehicle belonged to someone who visited Walker in May. 

Also, if LHO was concerned the photograph would connect him to the shooting---why hold on to the photograph? Hold onto the photograph but cut out the license plate number? Huh? 

The odds favor an official excised the Walker backyard photograph of the license plate. Reasonable deductions on why?

 A probability that actually does seem kind of low is for the photo to have been taken after the shooting. Who knows why Oswald kept it. Perhaps he had a sentimental streak.

Perhaps Oswald got a little paranoid and at some point obliterated the license plate because it in a very concrete way could connect him to Walker and the shooting if it fell into the wrong hands. Does it have to be more complicated than that?

Don't you have Oltmans' book, Jean?

You might also consider the Italian edition of Gun's book, Le Rose Rosse Del Texas. Unlike the rare and expensive US edition, this one is large format, loaded with photos, and very easy to find on ebay.it.

Bloomgarden's The Gun should also be right in your wheelhouse.

My eyes were naturally drawn to the passages mentioning my home country, and there were a few typos and other peculiarities.

1) Typos (can happen with casual copying from pdfs)

• "Elstrabladet" = Ekstra Bladet
• "Berlingske-Tidende" = Berlingske Tidende
• "Lolland-Palsters Polketidemic" = Lolland-Falsters Folketidende
• "Mykning P." = Nykøbing F.

2) Redundancy (repeatedly referring to the same person as a "known communist")

• "a known Danish Communist, Jorgen Theilgaard Jacobsen"
• "Jorgen Jacobsen, a known Communist"
• "Jorgen Jacobsen, the known Communist"

Note: Jørgen Jacobsen quit the DKP in 1956.

3) Currency conversion gone wrong

• "2500 D.kr. ($35.24 USD)"
• "5000 D.kr. ($70.49 USD)"

Different inflation calculators will give you slightly different results, but 1 DKK in 1965 seems to correspond to roughly 1.70 USD in today's currency.

Barb Junkkarinen (last year, I think).

Stephen Roy (May 2016)
Anthony Marsh (unconfirmed, but appears to have been MIA since March 2021)

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

One of the most interesting parts of the book is by Andrew Eiler. 

Andrew is a very accomplished lawyer from Ontario.

He talked to Tanenbaum about differing standards of proof and he describes them in the book and how they originated.

He then explained how the WC and the HSCA did not abide by them.

Therefore the question is: by what standard was Oswald convicted?

I had never seen this issue raised as pointedly or as knowledgeably as Andrew did.

I sure as heck would have liked to see him debate Bugliosi on this.

Perhaps you could get Lance Payette to review the book instead.

Greg, it's from Fort Worth. There's a very similar photo in this article:

PHOTOS: President John F. Kennedy’s visit to Fort Worth on day of assassination

Sandy, please be aware that there are better versions (e.g. with less contrast) than the one posted previously. I dunno whether it will help you find the shirt pocket, though ...

Apparently, it was reported by the Washington Post. Mentioned in the WC testimony of Dean Rusk:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=40#relPageId=377

And I think it was the "no foreign involvement" angle.

I almost posted this yesterday: The Dallas Police Department’s Channel 1 Radio Dictabelts: The Chain of Possession by Chris Scally (2004).

4 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

The witnesses were not talking about the Walker photographs.

Those interviews were specifically about one particular Walker photo, not the backyard photos. On other occasions, before and after, they did talk about the backyard photos. Read JP's posts if you don't believe me.

13 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

 

Yeah, shows the value of asking direct questions.

3 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

I never lose any sleep over your INTERPRETATIONS of what the witnesses MEANT because your interpretations are usually wrong.

As they are this time.

The document didn't say he couldn't describe them. It said he couldn't recall any of the photographs, even though he testified that, we all looked at it and said, "that looks like the rifle used in the assassination". ( 7 H 209 )

Adamcik's testimony is corroborated by Detective Henry Moore, who testified that, "we all looked and commented on it." ( 7 H 216 )

Like Adamcik, Moore later told the FBI that he, does not recall any particular photograph recovered from that address. ( CD 1066, pg. 255 )

This in spite of looking at the photograph Gus Rose found and commenting on it at the scene. Only a couple of months after their testimony and all of a sudden these two detectives could not "recall any particular photograph" ?

Their statements to the FBI had nothing to do with any description. They all looked at the photo. They all commented on the photo. They mentioned the rifle in the photo. They knew what the photo contained.

A couple of months later, they told the FBI that they didn't know anything about, "any particular photograph recovered from that address."

Sounds to me like they were trying to distance themselves from the discovery of the photographs.

It would've been awfully nice of them to mention that there was an exception, but perhaps they knew that the FBI hadn't come to talk about the backyard photos. The FBI were acting on a request from the WC to investigate the matter of the Walker photo with the obliterated license plate. It's nicely summarized in CE 1351.

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

Funny that you mention John Adamcik's initials on the backyard photographs because he told the FBI after his Warren Commission testimony that, "he does not personally recall any of the photographs that were obtained from this residence."

Another way of saying that he wouldn't be able to describe to you what they depicted. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if I were you.

In Shayneyfelt's expert opinion, the backyard images were not composites. In the case of the 133B negative, specifically, he explained the steps that would have been required and concluded that it didn't seem at all possible. In fact, he felt certain "beyond reasonable doubt" that it couldn't have been done.

It's an interesting tactic to attempt to build a positive case (using Shaneyfelt of all people) for the images being composites when you don't even believe that it's Oswald's face in the images.