Michael Cross

If I have time to shoot a photo of my assertion I will. Can't promise. And wow. You can see the gunman? This is HUGE news. Alert the press.

From what angle Keyvan? You know the specific location of a shooter. An angle from the front right entering the right side of JFK's forehead - with him slumped - would go through the back right of his head. You seem to be assuming a specific location.

Only if he was shot from directly in front. If you define front as anything forward of a 90 degree line extending from both sides of the center of JFK's head, there are hundreds of locations mathematically (in degrees) that work without hitting the follow up car. Or Jackie.

Looking at the clip, the shape of JFK's cheek never changes. The light on it varies which makes it appear to change shape. If I had time and access to photoshop I would overlay a template to demonstrate.

I don't know if there are any better, but Costella's frames are good. https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

But no white car here? Presumably in front of the motorcycles?

This may be a dumb question . . . but what is the white car?

If there was a wound on the back of JFK's head they would have examined it as they assessed him. Simple. They had to assess what they needed to treat.

Anyone else notice what officer the article says followed Oswald into the theater?

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?

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

Well, yeah. Shows what I know.

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 . . .

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

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

Yes. You're correct. The man in the middle also seems to be Shelly . . .

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.

Do you even read what people write?

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.

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.

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.

Could be. If true. Conjecture is worthless. As is attacking another's research based on your opinion.

Yes. Vacuous assertions. Based only on his opinion, not fact nor math.

It's called sarcasm. Your claims are just as baseless. Duh.