Michael Cross

He may indeed be grabbing at his tie, but from the blurred images how, again, can anyone be certain? We need much better resolution to talk about individual fingers. I'm inclined to agree with Gil's theory overall. I don't think there's a good understanding of when the shot occured. For JFK to be reacting AT ALL, the bullet hit him several frames earlier at 18 FPS. I would argue he's reacting at 225, and more clearly at 226. This is the very beginning of his hands moving up, but they're moving. Which makes the bullet impact several frames earlier IMO. 226:

Cliff, as I said I may be wrong. Likely even. But look at the height of JFK's right elbow. It's at least ear height. That's not a normal position, which is why I've thought it's a reaction to the force of the back shot. I don't have time to look at earlier frames right now to make the comparison. If I have time later I will, just to illustrate what I see.

No one can be certain of anything being discussed in this thread. No certainty. Having said that, the frame pictured always seemed to me to be the back shot. Hands were coming up, back shot impacts, elbows raise. I'm not certain of that of course. Best guess.

That looks like pure sheep dipping.

Thanks for posting Mr. Griffin! So you were on site of the Tippit murder?

I knew you'd have visuals to show what I was trying to illustrate. Wish I had photoshop at work. Thanks David.

Which my photo supports John. The BYP shadows should behave in a similar fashion to my example, and they don't.

Your point is moot. The BYP has nothing aligned. My photo of the sculpture has shadows cast by vertical objects at similar proximity to each other. It's a valid comparison.

I guess so Ray. Nonetheless, for those thinking critically, IMO looking at that photo as comparison, you can see the convergence AND see that something is off in the BYP.

Yes.

Front view, seems pretty damn uniform and as illustrated in first photo, has rows:

I must admit I simply don't understand John's reaction to the above photo. I took it for comparison because we have multiple vertical objects in a close area. If you lay a straight edge on the shadows you can see them converge as Ray has argued here, but much more subtle and consistent manner, IMO, than what is happening in the BYP. With respect to John's concerns, I walked into this area to take the photo:

Seriously? I'll photograph it from another angle so you can understand, but damn man, that's some serious paranoia. And it's raining here today so there will be no shadows unfortunately.

Just for comparison, I photographed a sculputure by Abakanowicz here at my museum. These figures are all the same, aligned in rows. You can see the shadow convergence, but it is uniform across the field of vision.

That is fascinating. He lost his nerve and wouldn't talk further. Wonder if he's still alive.

No thoughts here? Left of bus, white pants, blazer, white shirt collar, hands in pockets . . . You can almost hear him whistling.

Same guy in white pants? Sauntering, hands in pockets?

Unger has a pretty comprehensive collection.

I was referring to the guy in front of the Neruda character. Hands behind back or in pockets, impossibly calm looking. *edit for clarity.

Check out the cosmopolitan guy behind the "Hunt" figure . . . white pants, blazer, open shirt, relaxed . . . wtf?

David Joseph presents some of the most cogent arguments in the field, always supported by easy to understand visual reference. Your theories have me wondering if you are a disinformation plant.

What he said.

Mark it. I agree with DVP on something. Check the temp in hell.

Thanks. That's pretty dramatic. Doesn't look like an artifact or emulsion drop out. And kind of matches the splatter in Zapruder doesn't it?

Where are you looking? What area?