Jump to content
The Education Forum

Michael Cross

Members
  • Content count

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Michael Cross

  1. Michael Cross

    Alternative Assassins (names)

    Rich, I'm in no way impugning your skill with a rifle. But are you trained to fire from a high position? Because that's one of the things that so many people thinking about the shooting in this case don't understand. Shooting at a significant downward angle with a rifle sighted for a level shot will cause you to miss high. Every time. Which I think may explain the Tague shot . . .
  2. Anyone else notice what officer the article says followed Oswald into the theater?
  3. Michael Cross

    Shooter Location

    Chris, it's hard to discern what leg is moving from the vid you posted. I assume you think the moving leg doesn't match in the two films?
  4. Michael Cross

    Alexandra Zapruder Book: Part 2

    Are you addressing me David? *edit, I think I see you are addressing Mr. Walton but started with my name . . . I think.
  5. Michael Cross

    Alexandra Zapruder Book: Part 2

    Well, yeah. Shows what I know.
  6. Michael Cross

    Alexandra Zapruder Book: Part 2

    Chris has provided a simple understandable example here. If Walton can't see the anomaly, the disparity, then he either isn't trying (likely) or . . .
  7. Michael Cross

    The H&L "two schools at the same time" mystery

    No clue if Sandy is a genius. I just demonstrated that you were talking out of your arse.
  8. Michael Cross

    The H&L "two schools at the same time" mystery

    Wow. "A normal intelligence quotient (IQ) ranges from 85 to 115 (According to the Stanford-Binet scale). Only approximately 1% of the people in the world have an IQ of 135 or over. Genius or near-genius IQ is considered to start around 140 to 145. Less than 1/4 of 1 percent falls into this category." http://bfy.tw/FrHU
  9. Yes. You're correct. The man in the middle also seems to be Shelly . . .
  10. Again, do you even read what people write? What's my stance? Do I believe in the Oswald project? I'm resisting using derogatory names, but it's hard. Your purposeful obtuseness sucks.
  11. Do you even read what people write?
  12. No. Anyone that doesn't present research, skews the available research and presents misinformation, or opinion as fact, may be a misinformation agent. As to being an agnostic, I'm not convinced of the "Oswald Project". I am convinced there was a deliberate attempt to impersonate him at the least. I'm also convinced there are far too many incidents of LHO being in two places at once for it to be a clerical issue. And my God, get off your high horse. In danger? Did you notice what happened yesterday? The American sheeple are asleep. There will be no riots over the withholding of the documents, and those in the shadows know it. Try doing some research of your own. Present something rather than attack with empty rhetoric.
  13. Again, saying it has been debunked doesn't debunk it. Just as ignoring what it costs to be alive with kids when calculating income simply invalidates your assertions. Exhumation? Please. I'm on record as a H&L agnostic. But there is so much ACTUAL evidence of, AT A MINIMUM, an organized campaign to impersonate LHO, that those of you simply opining and being purposefully obtuse make me wonder if you're disinformation agents. Wonder, not accuse, because this observer can't find another explanation.
  14. We don't even have a debate on this topic. We have the H&L group posting evidence, fact, their RESEARCH, and the detractors posting opinion and misinformation/purposeful misinterpretation. It's pathetic. Josephs and Hargrove have the patience of saints.
  15. Could be. If true. Conjecture is worthless. As is attacking another's research based on your opinion.
  16. Yes. Vacuous assertions. Based only on his opinion, not fact nor math.
  17. It's called sarcasm. Your claims are just as baseless. Duh.
  18. Probably. Multiple properties from one sale that was probably purchased with insurance money. She was probably an amazing investor, a savant. She probably had a print press in each of her multiple homes for counterfeiting. She probably robbed several banks. Probably.
  19. I wonder when it was last shown. The white whale.
  20. No. No they don't. And they aren't sufficient to explain the real estate holdings.
  21. It's easy to make things up too Tracy. Claiming she bought real estate by selling real estate is a circular and empty argument. It has no merit. She was able to own real estate as you say. HOW? She ran a con? Show proof.
  22. Yes, again, vacuous and now circular thought from Parnell. Empty.
  23. That may be the most vacuous thing I've ever read. The question is not did she profit from real estate, it is how did she BUY real estate. By "running a con" on everyone? Please. What's your source, as you don't give us any documentation.
  24. Yes, thanks for making my point.
×