Michael Cross

16 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I agree with Gil's analysis that JFK was grabbing at the tie with his left forefinger. 

Then the finger stiffens.

Civilians working for the US Army Special Operations Division developed paralytics to silence guard dogs -- took two seconds to take effect.

That's about how long it took JFK to act paralyzed.

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:

1 hour ago, Rich Pope said:

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.

30 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Defensive posture.

He holds his fists in a manner to prevent getting hit from the same location.

Occam's Razor -- what's the most likely explanation for a man acting paralyzed?

He's paralyzed.

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.

4 hours ago, Franklin Griffin said:

What you see highlighted in yellow has to me this lady was talking about, that' exactly what I did that day.

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.

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

 

What is noticeable is that all the shadows are moving off the light source correctly in one direction.  My proof for the BYP's being fake are 3 conflicting shadows moving in different directions. 

 

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.

13 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

 

Does the U.S. need to restore the Fairness Act?

 

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:

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

The figures in the Cross photo are not orderly.  They are not in a uniform formation.  They are not in straight rows.  It appears that the figures are arranged to provide converging shadows.  Why?  Converging shadows seem to be important to those who argue the validity of the BYP's.  Converging shadows are some kind of validation for the BYP's. 

What is noticeable is that all the shadows are moving off the light source correctly in one direction.  My proof for the BYP's being fake are 3 conflicting shadows moving in different directions. 

How gullible does Cross think people are?

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.

20 hours ago, Michael Cross said:

 

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

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.

8 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Pablo Neruda?  I understood he was anti-CIA in his poetry...  not sure if we proved this was him or not...

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?

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

Joseph's comments are bringing around to me the notion that he may be a secret "Lone Gunner".  His manipulation of what I have posted is second rate. 

"Visual and cognitive diarrhea" may be better than just throwing documents and photos at a situation and leaving it up to the viewer to figure it out.  The problem with Josephs is I have corrected on more than one occasion his slipshod research.  This has generated hatred.

Actually, I have destroyed one of his threads concerning firing angles and the 6th floor Sniper's Nest, a complicated piece.  I made the comment you can't prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone fired a weapon from the 6th floor Sniper's Nest.  From that point on he produced vile and insulting remarks the least of which is calling me an Anti-Cointelpro Agent, whatever that is.

I have in recent posts offered an olive branch but, I see that has been rejected.

The obvious Lone Gunners on this forum will gang up, as they have in the past, to try and shut down what I am saying with brilliant comments from folks like Ron Bulman's "Horse cocci."

Michael Clark has reminded me I should watch what I say and behave myself while responding.  Thanks Michael, I am studying Life on Earth more seriously. 

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.

58 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

There's a slim chance that JFK is reacting to something unpleasant on Main Street in the AMIPA film, but bullet strikes in the back and head are precluded when, after the turn onto Houston, we see JFK lean forward to share a word with Nellie Connally.  In the Towner film, we see him move  a bit in his seat after the Elm turn, (perhaps also in reaction to something off-putting, like a near miss).  All this is a lot of movement, and a lot of stoicism, for a man who took a couple in the head and back two blocks before.

What he said.

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

27 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Here's over to the right in the frame, behind the wall were the shadow figure was seen, happens about 2/3 the way thru

This one, right Michael?  Obviously Chris is talking about someone else...  shooting from a different direction

 

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?

18 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The only muzzle blast assemblance I've found.

This occurs four Bronson frames (1/3 second) after the extant z313 headshot.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xZh5FUEcE9k3vKAAzIgRlW9URBCsfZbc/view?usp=sharing

 

Where are you looking?  What area?