Mark Ulrik

Beyond reasonable doubt, according to Shaneyfelt.

I think they got them from Studebaker. So what?

I'm not sure what the point is supposed to be. Doesn't it seem reasonable to have your negatives developed all in one batch? Junk. Twisting words. He was explaining how difficult and unlikely it would have been. Wait, did "someone" create a clever composite (or three) or photograph a lookalike in the backyard? Even Oswald was confused. More junk.

https://aarclibrary.org/researcher-john-hunt-jr-1965-2018/

It punched a hole in the shirt, didn't it? Very hard to imagine that it didn't enter.

It's even worse than that. The bullet would also have had to work its way out through the shirt.

That alone seems to put Landis' story to bed. It would also be hard to explain how a bullet causing only a shallow wound would sustain the amount of damage that CE 399 did.

It's not like we're losing any sleep over it. Your bud was, in all likelihood, just trying to impress you.

We all make mistakes, så hak nu ikke Dem selv i hækken om det.

Another example of confused language: What does "they" refer to? It's ambiguous. The homeowners? The Paines? Or perhaps even the police? No need to thank me. How many parts dare we hope for?

Check out this portion where the guy has to "help" the clip fall out:

Yeah, but with the spent shells bouncing off the boxes and rolling on the floor, it's hard to predict where they're going to come to rest. The video that Gil uploaded to his own channel is a small portion of an original video by an uncredited content creator. Here's another portion where the shells are clearly coming out to the side:

ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY February 28, 1986 Vol. 8, #1 Paul L. Hoch "Reasonable Doubt" ... There is a second very provocative piece of new evidence, resulting from Hurt's 1982 phone call to Adm. George Burkley. He said "that he believed that President Kennedy's assassination was the result of a conspiracy." He subsequently refused "to discuss any aspect of the case." (P. 49) As JFK's personal physician, and the only doctor present at Parkland and the Bethesda autopsy, Burkley was in an especially crucial position. He did not testify to the Warren Commission (which published his contemporaneous report containing basically no medical details, CE 1126.) He did give five interviews to William Manchester (the last one in July, 1966). Manchester recently told me that Burkley did not then believe there had been a conspi- racy. However, Hurt notes that in a 1967 oral history interview, Burkley was asked if he agreed with the Warren Commission on the number of bullets that hit JFK; he replied, "I would not care to be quoted on that." The HSCA interviewed Burkley at least once, generating in addition an outside contact report and an affidavit -- all unpublished and unavailable. Along with the Tippit evidence, the Burkley assertion of conspiracy calls for intense examination by the Justice Department and, I hope, by some reporters. (For my letters to Assistant AG Stephen Trott, ask for #1986.3 [1 Feb 86, on Burkley] and #4 [2 pp., 4 Feb 86, on Tippit].) ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY May 31, 1987 Vol. 9, #1 Paul L. Hoch Status of the Justice Department review ... One of my unacknowledged letters to the JD last year directed their attention to Adm. George Burkley's comments to Henry Hurt, to the effect that he should be included among the majority of Americans who think there was a conspiracy. (See 8 EOC 1.2 for a discussion.) Dr. Burkley's comments to Hurt may well not have been based on what he knew about the medical evidence, according to information recently provided to me. William Manchester, who interviewed Dr. Burkley five times from April 1964 through July 1966, told me that at that time Dr. Burkley said he did not believe in a conspiracy theory, and was emphatic on that point. Also, Dr. Burkley recently told a relative of his that he did think that Oswald must have been part of a conspiracy, because the way he and his family lived and traveled was indicative of financial support. (This suspicion has been voiced by many people over the years, and the Warren Commission attempted to rebut in in Appendix XIV of the Report.) This relative also asked Dr. Burkley about Lifton's book when it was published; Dr. Burkley did not provide any clarification of the issues involved, nor did he indicate that he agreed with any of Lifton's analysis. If there is more information to be obtained about what Dr. Burkley knew, it will probably have to come from existing documents, or as the result of an official inquiry by the Justice Department.

Thanks, Steve.

Homework assignment. Look at your face in the mirror, then nod a bit forward. Report back to us what happens to the top of your ears relative to your eyes.

I suspect neither of you does.

What you saw earlier was probably not the original post by Shepherd, but the "shared" version on Mueller's FB page.

The "prediction" would've been more impressive if it had included Oswald. Even more so if it had been reported to the authorities before the murder. Some people are fond of making bold predictions, and once in a while they turn out true. We rarely hear about the other ones. Consider me skeptical about this one.

I won't be able to contribute much in this area, Mervyn. My knowledge of Radio Mercur is superficial at best. It operated before my time, I haven't studied the subject, and I've never really thought of it as anything other than a (monopoly-breaking) purveyor of light entertainment.

It seems neither of us believes that he knew, so where's the beef?

Allegedly!

Can you direct us to where this unknown person with a possibly Cuban dialect mentions Oswald specifically?

Thank you?

Footnote in Manchester's book: