Michael Cross
-
Posts
217 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Michael Cross
-
-
1 hour ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:
1. IMO the right temple. - Then that would be the other magic bullet. If it enters the right temple, it then would have to make a 90 degree turn to exit the back of the skull. If you look at the Zapruder film, his head was tilted to the left when he got hit. He got hit above the right ear near the temple area and the bullet exited the top of his skull.
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.
-
6 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:
If he was shot from the front and the bullet exited the back of his head, that bullet would have hit the follow-up car in the windshield.
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.
-
11 hours ago, Robin Unger said:
3-motorcycles seen in Bell
But no white car here? Presumably in front of the motorcycles?
-
6 hours ago, Robin Unger said:
This may be a dumb question . . . but what is the white car?
-
18 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:
IMO - How can anyone at parkland see the back of JFK's head when he was faceup in the operating table? This is what I am conflicted with. Did they flip JFK to be butt up so they can see the wound at the back of the head? The nurse stated that she never saw the bullet wound on the back of JFK, so I assume no. All the hard evidence; X-rays, Autopsy pictures point to a cavity at the right top side of JFK's head.
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.
-
On 6/21/2018 at 2:16 AM, Bart Kamp said:
You mean the Vice President of the TSBD Ochus Virgil Campbell?
NYHT Nov 22
DMN Nov 22
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?
-
22 hours ago, David Josephs said:
Mr Cross... definitely a mountain more than whiny child who can't wait to come on the forum to deliver a few of his "GOTCHA" moments... must help him make it thru the day.
You wrote:
https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ Just go here. Instead of creating something from a new technology, go to the above. Download all of the frames of the UNALTERED film there.which is simply a link to Costella's frames... where within this link is it mentioned they are UNALTERED?
Have you ever spoken/written to John about these frames... ??
And how again would the finished product of the alteration, taken frame by frame, show it was UNALTERED ???Answer: it doesn't. the frames, as John intended, shows conclusively that frames were removed, that movement is too fast for reality, that there was a splice rather than a start/start at 132/133, that there is a film break at z156/7 and again from 207 to 212. And then again at 340... and once more at 349/350
You see Mike, whenever there is BLACK in the sprocket area the film was replaced by film from one of the "copies" which didn't have the edge printing.
there are from 4 to as many as 7 splices/breaks in the "UNALTERED" film you refer to... and that's before anything of significance was done...
There is so much you simply do not know or care to know that it's become a chore trying to get you caught up.
Isn't there a thread here for which you DO have something to offer and can spend time annoying people over there for a while ?
My G~d you're a PITA
Are you addressing me David?
*edit, I think I see you are addressing Mr. Walton but started with my name . . . I think.
-
12 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:
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 .
====
Michal Cross,
My apologies, that example is wrong.
=====
Mike Cross...
Now that takes the cake LOL
Well, yeah. Shows what I know.
-
On 1/28/2018 at 2:24 PM, Chris Davidson said:
You do not allow yourself to compare the extant film against a normal film.
The skips/jerkiness you refer to are there in the extant film.
Look harder.
For example: I'll use the extant frames 303-306 which are part of the 1/3 second analogy I previously supplied.
Use the "convertible top glass side support frame" as a measuring point.
Do you see the distance difference between how far the limo travels from z303-z304 and z304-z305.
Good luck trying to distinguish that difference viewing a film at 18.3fps.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/120IimRdqEKpNTiDtuLiccssoYUlDYVzm/view?usp=sharing.
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 . . .
-
19 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:
My apologies. It's official. Sandy is a genius.
No clue if Sandy is a genius. I just demonstrated that you were talking out of your arse.
-
On 1/1/2018 at 12:52 PM, Bernie Laverick said:
Firstly, IQ tests have long since been thoroughly discredited as a measure of judging intelligence. (Clearly you don't do much reading). And secondly, 145? Even if IQs did say something of someone's intellectual capacity...145 isn't that high. You pronounce yourself as highly intelligent. Hurray! Pat on the back for Sandy. Stand back while the cleverest man in the universe figures it all out. He's fixed tellies before so if anyone is going to get to the bottom of this it will be Sandy 145 Larsen.
But that is just your puffed up grandiose and chronically egotistical self evaluation. Mine is that you present as a straightforward simpleton. At best.
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."
-
On 10/29/2017 at 2:46 PM, Michael Clark said:
I am pretty sure the picture in question is of Oswald in the presence of 5-or-so other men leaflletting at the NOLA Trade Mart, during his sheep-dipping.
Yes. You're correct. The man in the middle also seems to be Shelly . . .
-
29 minutes ago, David Josephs said:
Bernie, that you can even read is amazing. That you understand nothing you muddle thru on these pages is obvious.
You haven't been included in any BIG BOY conversations as you wind up wetting yourself, screaming like a child and then holding your breath as you scratch your head in wonder.... you've not contributed one addition thing to these forums other than illustrating yourself as the uninformed, opinionated buffoon you remain after all these years.
You and Tracy remain the only ones babbling on and on about work you truly cannot grasp... about evidence that eludes you, about a history you simply don't like or want to accept...
Babble on buddy - your representation of the antithesis POV so illustrates the level of thought and consideration you boys put into your work.... At least Tracy and Greg DO SOMETHING...
WTF do you do..... other than criticize that which remains so far above your comprehension ?
You do nothing Bernie, add nothing but the parroting of your betters while patting yourself on the back for being so "insightful"... maybe a little less self-pleasuring and some actual research and you wouldn't come off on these pages as a complete fool.
Go back to the stage... sing your melodies and rock on forever...
the tunes you pitch here are worthless... always have been. Until you learn what it means not to be so "half-assed" about the little research in which you do engage and maybe do your homework BEFORE you insert foot into mouth... you'll forever be a lost little boy tugging at the apron strings of understanding this case.but hey... it's all in good fun and for the cause of learning... Love ya buddy... keep up the great "work"
-
11 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:
No idea then...? Thought so.
Reading what others have written is precisely why I am questioning their multiple conclusions, as varied and as exotic as they have been. As you can see above, Jim has now reverted back to the operation been done by complete chance while the Hungarian/Russian refugee/orphan was 'over there'. No documentation. No evidence. Just blind faith.
Only 20 posts ago Jim was convinced that the operation was "most likely" (see the evidence he provides there?) done in NY, "probably" (and again) in 1952/3. He's ditched that now. He's gone back to an exact same obscure operation been performed on a Hungarian refugee who was picked by unknown hands for an as yet unspecified espionage plot and who again, coincidentally, managed to grow through adolescence to look identical to the character he was destined to adopt. That's not even a pair of twos in a poker game!
It has been said by the H&L faction that the exhumation was faked too. Is this on top of the coincidental mastoid operation explanation... or an alternative one?
Three explanations for one event, and all three have been proposed without a shred of evidence. When one explanation is rebutted, even with scientific evidence, they revert to another.
1 - 'Harvey' by pure chance had had the same mastoid operation as a kid.
2 - It was done in NY in 1952/3
3 - The exhumation or its findings were faked.
You would agree Michael that should one of these be true you would want to see some proof? Or is me asking that question adequate evidence in your mind that I am some spooky disinfo agent?
In fact, because there are three explanations, all of which are interwovenly used, it really is beholden on those that promote the theory to go and look for the smoking gun. Or at least, pick one of them and stick to it!
I implore the H&L supporters to do what the best researchers do on here. Develop it!! Prove it! Dig out more information. NOTHING has been added to this story in over twenty years. Nothing. What does that tell you Michael?
That's why they don't bother looking - because there's nothing for them to find!
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.
-
3 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:
Correct. There is no debate here. The "research" and "evidence" you are alluding to has all been debunked over and over and over again.
Maybe you can tell us Michael how Lee's body ended up in Harvey's grave? If you can answer that then your contribution may hold some merit. But be warned, because the most knowledgeable men on H&L can't answer it. Have I misinterpreted this? If so, please accept my apologies along with their, of your, crystal clear explanation as to how this may have happened.
Of course, should you be unable to do this, then you may want to question why you make such pointless posts.
While your at it, fancy trying to calculate the odds of two unrelated boys picked as children eventually growing up to look identical...?
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.
-
6 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:
Mr. Parnell sums up Marguerite’s income in addition to her extremely low paying jobs and comes up with a total of $17,400 covering a period extending from 1939 to at least 1951, on average less than $1500 per year. From that figure he deducts none of the expenses that would need to be covered for herself, three children, and seven different homes owned at various times, also not including mortgage payments. But he considers this suitable income for her to enjoy ownership of three homes simultaneously while living in a fourth.
Yes. Vacuous assertions. Based only on his opinion, not fact nor math.
-
It's called sarcasm. Your claims are just as baseless.
Duh.
Where is the exit?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.