Mark Ulrik
-
Posts
445 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mark Ulrik
-
-
1 minute ago, Gil Jesus said:
You think ? We're talking evidence here, not opinion.
So what ? Where did Studebaker get them from ?
Back in those days, you couldn't make copies of photographs without the negatives.
How did the Dallas Police make copies without the negatives ?
And if the copies were made using the negatives, where are the negatives of CE 133-A and CE 133-C ( Dees and Stovall ) today ?
The CE 133-C/Dees and CE 133-C/ Stovall were never reportedly found by the Dallas Police. According to your people ( the authorities ), only CE 133-A and CE 133-B were found in the Paine garage.
Where did this different photo with a different pose come from ?
I'm sure a lot has been written about the missing negatives in this forum alone. Quite obviously, Studebaker must have had access to a couple of them at some point, but the emulsion tears were from the development process, and no one knows where Oswald had the negatives developed.
-
Just now, Charles Blackmon said:
Great. So how unlikely would it have been?
Beyond reasonable doubt, according to Shaneyfelt.
-
Just now, Gil Jesus said:
The photos recovered from Geneva Dees in 1976 and by the HSCA from Det. Richard Stovall in 1978 had the same processing errors as the photographs allegedly found in the Paine garage on November 23, 1963. Did Oswald give them these photos ?
I think they got them from Studebaker. So what?
-
Quote
The Camera Panel also found the CE 133-B negative had been improperly processed causing emulsion tears. ( ibid., Pg. 353 )
The panel also found the same emulsion tears on :
the CE 134 enlargement made by police and shown to Oswald ( HSCA Report, Vol VI, pg. 155 )
both of the 133-C photos, 133-C / Dees and 133-C / Stovall ( 2 HSCA 354 )
on 133-A Demohrenschildt ( HSCA Report, Vol VI, pg. 155 )
and on CE 133-A / Stovall. ( 2 HSCA 358 )
This indicates that whoever processed the photos which were found in later years in the possession of Dallas Police officers made the same processing error found in the 133-A and 133-B photographs.
A coincidence ? I don't believe so.
I believe that this indicates that the processing of the "backyard" photographs was done by one source.
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?
QuoteBut the Committee's Panel achieved its conclusion by means that were less than honest. It seems that it avoided addressing certain measurements of facial features of the "Oswald" in the photographs that had been brought to its attention, like the ear lobes, nose and especially the chin.
By avoiding these measurements, the Panel's data is incomplete and as such, its conclusion is nullified [...]
Junk.
Quote[...] which puts us back to square one and the question:
Is it possible that the photographs could have been faked without leaving a trace ?
Short answer: yes.
FBI agent Lyndal Shaneytfelt [sic], testified that, "I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite". ( 4 H 288 )
He went on to explain how it could be done:
"...for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and them rephotograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749." ( ibid. )
Realizing that he had just spilled the beans, he added that, "it just doesn't seem that it would be at all possible, in this particular photograph" ( 4 H 289 ).
Too late. The cat was out of the bag. He had just testified that the photos could have been faked without leaving any trace.
Twisting words. He was explaining how difficult and unlikely it would have been.
QuoteOver the years, much attention has been given to the possibility that Oswald's face was pasted onto someone else's body.
This attention has resulted from Oswald's allegedly telling the Dallas Police exactly that during his interrogation. But according to Detective Gus [sic] Rose, who was present when Captain Fritz showed Oswald the blowup of CE 133-A, Oswald also said that, "I won't even admit that. That is not even my face". ( 7 H 231 )
Wait, did "someone" create a clever composite (or three) or photograph a lookalike in the backyard? Even Oswald was confused.
QuoteI took a bunch of photographs purportedly of Oswald and put them all together. I was able to find that there were six versions of Oswald. The six versions are horizontal and the vertical columns are the photos that match those six versions.
As you can see, none of these six versions of Oswald match the Oswald in the backyard photographs. It may be that the "backyard Oswald" was a composite or just a look-alike.
More junk.
-
-
21 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
Unless it never made its way inside the shirt... Some like to twist Humes' statements into his saying the bullet penetrated an inch or so. His testimony is clear, however, that it barely broke the skin. if so, this would 1) indicate that the bullet was under-charged, and 2) be in keeping with Landis' current recollection of seeing an intact bullet in the rear compartment.
It punched a hole in the shirt, didn't it? Very hard to imagine that it didn't enter.
-
22 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:
"1. Landis' explanation is that CE 399 is a projectile that made the shallow wound in JFK's back, and then fell out."
There is no chance that a bullet struck Kennedy in the back and penetrated only to such a shallow depth that it could later simply fall out of the entry wound. Complete nonsense. Whatever did occur, it wasn't this.
It's even worse than that. The bullet would also have had to work its way out through the shirt.
-
49 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:
The following quote from the article implies the bullet was ejected from the shallow back wound by the energy of the head shot. It appears to be the speculation of the author, not Landis.
"Maybe the bullet entered the president’s back only superficially; these WW II–vintage bullets, after all, were notoriously undercharged with gunpowder. If this were the case, it might have indeed fallen out when he was violently struck with the final shot;".
He further speculates it landed on Jackie's clothing and was dragged with her as she climbed onto the trunk. In that case the bullet would not need to exit through the hole in the coat, as I assumed before. But it would still have to exit through the hole in the shirt. The hole in the shirt would have to be aligned with the entry wound even though JFK had raised his hands and hunched forward.
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.
-
37 minutes ago, Evan Marshall said:
What I learned long before I got to Homicide is that you don't dime out your informants. Revealing names is a good way for them or you to end up as dead as Martha Washington, I would never consider naming my CIA bud as he's still alive. And after he's passed I still won't tell it to folks!
It's not like we're losing any sleep over it. Your bud was, in all likelihood, just trying to impress you.
-
1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:
Or I can translate via Google.
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?
-
-
1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:
As the clip was found in the rifle after the assassination, does this mean LHO never cycled bullet #4 into the chamber?
I had always thought LHO had automatically cycled bullet #4 into the chamber getting ready for a 4th shot but on seeing Kennedy's head explode decided not to fire. But if the clip was still inside the rifle then LHO must not have cycled bullet #4 into the chamber.
So when Fritz said he ejected the 4th bullet, what did he have to do to eject that bullet?
Check out this portion where the guy has to "help" the clip fall out:
-
1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:
The shells look to be coming out directly to the side of the rifle to me. As the rifle was angled about 45 degrees laterally in the horizontal plane in the snipers nest, this would send the shells forward into the boxed off area of the snipers nest where they were later found.
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. -
4 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:
Mark,
You're right. I realized later that in one photo, the person's head is tilted slightly back. In the other photo, the person's head is tilted slightly forward.
Steve Thomas
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.
-
6 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:
No, the CIA Director's Memorandum is in the replies to Shepherd's original posting on Facebook. I have provided the links to see this to Mervyn but he now states he does not know how this works on Facebook.
I suspect neither of you does.
-
47 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:
Yes, I saw his response but there is no CIA document. I am not sure how that works. Is it getting removed and repasted? I don't know but I think Cory hit the nail on the head and so did Larry. It appears to be a hoax and so there is not point in drawing any further attention to it. You might to delete this thread.
What you saw earlier was probably not the original post by Shepherd, but the "shared" version on Mueller's FB page.
-
1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:
Who says I don't believe him ? The man makes a prediction that comes true and he has no credibility ?
Why can't you answer my question ?
How does a Cuban in a drugstore in San Antonio know in advance Kennedy will be killed in Dallas
if Oswald was the killer ? How did he know Oswald was going to assassinate the President ?
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.
-
1 minute ago, Mervyn Hagger said:
Mark, you claim to be in Denmark, and if you are then here's a question for you that goes straight from Big D (KLIF) and Gordon McLendon to General Somoza in Nicaragua about a twin ship broadcasting operation. One station is just beginning in the Baltic Sea off Sweden, and the other one is being taken over by McLendon. It operates off the coast of Denmark and it has a radiating signal that reaches into Malmo, Sweden. But it is a Danish station, now controlled by McLendon who has strong CIA connections via David Atlee Phillips. McLendon is also advising the Board of the CIA Radio Free Europe whose transmissions are not aimed at the captive Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. McLendon and his pals are filling that gap with help from Somoza who also gave aid and comfort to the expat Cubans working for the CIA under Bobby Kennedy and planning on a new invasion of their homeland. Here's the proof of McLendon's involvement in all this:
By the way, Bob is Robert F. Thompson who is in direct contact with Robert F. Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs debacle, and Bobby Kennedy reaches out to Thompson for help in providing the Special Group (Augmented) with a ship from which to launch propaganda balloons dropping their cargo into the island of Cuba.
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.
-
8 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:
He doesn't have to mention Oswald.
YOU PEOPLE say Oswald was the assassin.
If Oswald killed the President, as you say, then how did this Cuban know in advance what he was going to do ?
It seems neither of us believes that he knew, so where's the beef?
-
1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:
How did this Cuban in a drugstore in San Antonio know the night before the assassination that Oswald was going to kill the President ?
Allegedly!
-
17 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:
Maybe the "Oswald-did-it" crowd would like to take a crack at this one:
How did this Cuban in a drugstore in San Antonio know the night before the assassination that Oswald was going to kill the President ?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/62-109060-sec-10-pg.-67.png
Can you direct us to where this unknown person with a possibly Cuban dialect mentions Oswald specifically?
Another Look at the "Backyard Photographs" --- Part IV
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Feel free to read his testimony. He walks us through the steps that would have been required to make a composite similar to CE 133B. He can't eliminate the theoretical possibility of undetectable forgery in the case of CE 133B, but finds it highly unlikely, based on his observations, experience, and expertise.