Michael Cross

Yes, and David presents cogent, verifiable evidence. If he forms a thesis, it is based on data that can be verified, which should be the standard for all research.

Yes, you're right. My bad.

How striking is it that those vehicles and motorcycles are STOPPED?!

That's a great read Jim. Chris Davidson has a gif with an apparent muzzle flash in the area described - if memory serves.

Not to speak for Dave, but they seem to move with the car albeit not perfectly - I wondered if it's an alteration error.

I'm wondering that as well. Greg Burnham has seen it as well. Pamela?

Taillight to center line is slight? Hardly.

Oh my. LOL. That's hilarious.

'Zactly. FC in another thread talking about LHO's own actions as proof. Presumably like vehemently denying he shot anyone. It really feels like we've had a couple of disinfo artists deployed here.

But was his gun sighted for a downhill angle? I'm guessing it was, that those "recreating" the shots, being experts, knew that a gun with sights adjusted for flat ground will miss high when fired at a downhill angle, and accordingly, set their sights for the angle. All "evidence" is that LHO practiced on flat land. If so, his gun would miss high.

David, as always, presents evidence, visual aids, real data. FC deflects and distracts. DVP offers opinion. Can't debate those that ignore data, facts. They'll just point "hey look over there" rather than deal with what's true. Splices. Multiple splices . . .

The coat is worse than the shirt. That is a LOW hole!

Nice assumption about Parkland, completely not based in fact. Any argument based on that assumption is groundless.

Indeed. Ignoring what doesn't fit his agenda.

Yes yes, you're the authority. We all bow down to your superior knowledge. Case closed as they say. That Gerald Ford character moving the back wound up was quite a thing though. Not sure why that was necessary given your overwhelming evidence.

I've thought about it. In detail. There are enough points of fact to dismiss the WC and your theory. Yet I cast no personal dispersions at you, as you did in your post to others. Not humor or irony or sarcasm.

Curious to hear how the WC apologist would rationalize this damning discrepancy . . .

Yes, but no agents on JFK's car, windows open with people hanging out, people on the balcony . . .

David, I'm trying to send you a message, the forum says you can't receive?

FWIW I'm with David on this. Lighting changes features. But there are too many similarities. Would be interesting to try facial recognition software.

Agreed and agreed.

Not that I can distinguish. If you can find one I'll recant. I'm not certain.

Cliff, your certainty that you are correct gets in the way of your reading skills I think. I've been referring to THIS statement by you when I say that you can't see what an individual finger does. You can guess, infer . . . hypothesize.

Fake SS in Dealy that day. Perhaps one of them.

Certain that he's grabbing his tie. Or extending a finger. If you read my response I said I was inclined to agree with Gil's hypothesis, but that the idea you can see WITH CERTAINTY what JFK's hands, let alone individual fingers are doing is nonsense. At least in the images on this thread.