Michael Cross

Animated GIF showing that the throat wound is located behind the knot of the necktie: (Posted by Ashton Gray years ago.) This GIF isn't a perfect registration. The ears align, nothing else does. Put your cursor on the tip of JFK's nose, or on his forehead and watch the discrepancy. No match, it can't prove anything.

And frankly, for all we know he spilled the beans at some point in custody. Without counsel present it was suppressed, and when they learned he would talk it forced them to kill him. Pure conjecture, of course.

YES. He's not doing math when he throws. His early attempts hit the ground and the amazing computer that is the human brain built a compensation mechanism for gravity - they throw the ball on an upward trajectory. I'm not an engineer like Sandy, but I did coach baseball for over a decade. Just so everybody knows, the post the Mike C. is responding to here was meant for Mike W. (Not to say that Mike C. can't respond if he wants to.) Yes, sorry, just agreeing with you. Allow me to quote John Oliver: "You don’t need people’s opinions on a fact. You might as well have a poll asking which number is bigger — 15 or 5?”

YES. He's not doing math when he throws. His early attempts hit the ground and the amazing computer that is the human brain built a compensation mechanism for gravity - they throw the ball on an upward trajectory. I'm not an engineer like Sandy, but I did coach baseball for over a decade.

My god. Did you look at the analysis I provided in that link. Or is your opinion the final word?

And taking a quick look, I don't see an actual Beatles version of the song on Youtube. Many many covers of it.

John always claimed he said cranberry sauce. I never heard it. Always heard I buried Pauuu. Haven't run across an altered version. +

Here's a nice analysis of the trajectory of an incredible throw in baseball: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=23864

Mike, You say that the ball starts falling as it arrives at home late. But can that be true? Gravity is what makes the ball drop. Do you think that gravity was in effect only when the ball neared home plate? The truth is that the ball started dropping the moment it left the throwers hand. It doesn't look like it's dropping, but that's because he didn't throw the ball horizontally.... the threw it at an upward angle. I have a question for you... don't you believe in science? If you do believe in science then you should believe what I and others have been telling you. The equation I introduced a few posts ago is a scientific equation that describes how far an object will fall due to gravity. I didn't make that equation up... it is well known to scientists, physicists, ballistics experts, and even guys like me who took Physics 101 in college. I showed you my source for the equation, which I used because I don't have it memorized. I got if from the Wikipedia article titled Equations for Falling Bodies. Do you think that you are smarter than all the scientists and physicists in the world? Smarter than Sir Isaac Newton, the man who formulated the concepts first describing the effect of gravity on falling objects and planetary motion? (BTW, Isaac Newton also invented a whole branch of advanced mathematics, that being calculus. His estimated IQ is close to 200) Why don't you go to Yahoo Answers or Quora and ask the people how far a 300 fps bullet will drop upon traveling 150 feet. Ask it in the Physics section. You will quickly find out that we are right and you are wrong. I am certain of that. Sandy's correct, both about the baseball trajectory - which is true even on throw's that look "level" across the infield - they are thrown upward and immediately flatten due to gravity's effect, and about the constant and irrefutable force of gravity. Arguing this point is a waste of time.

He can't show you. He discarded all his work immediately.

220/120 film (the size you reference) was common in that era for amateur photography. 35mm and smaller films were a later trend.

Ray, just curious, where did you get exact dimensions for each riser? And, are horizontal dimensions available as well?

Good question. How do we know we're not seeing the background material instead of the white lining of the tie?

Semantics. Not sure the argument caries weight either way. But, another word would be foyer.

I don't have a dog in this fight, other than to suggest that the research community needs to become comfortable with the idea of peer reviewed research.

Rooting for you.

Agreed. This preemptive thread was in error IMO. Tough Come up with any of your "original research" for us to verify? No? Destroyed it did you? SOP for most legitimate researchers to be sure.

Agreed. This preemptive thread was in error IMO.

I'd suggest you do some reading on Innocence Project case studies and maybe even watch Making a Murderer. In the meantime we'll name a new law in your honor; Tommy's Law - "If a provable lie by officials can be shown to be at least theoretically possible, it has met the minimum requirement for redemption, and the exculpatory evidence may be ignored". LOL, right on.

This is such incendiary evidence that it's kryptonite to those that would perpetuate the WC lie. The entire Evidence of Revision series is remarkable.

That's right Ray. That's one of the many problems with the alleged rifle purchase that doesn't seem to faze some people. On a separate piece of paper with the PMO -- "Please send to me, A. Hidell, in care of (C/O.) L. H. Oswald"? I don't suppose that's a possibility. Probably not. Oh well, back to the drawing board. --Tommy I "suppose" you can make up anything you want. Doesn't make it true. Dear Mr. Cross, Where did I say that it had to be true? Thanks, btw, for suggesting that it might have been like that. --Tommy Funny. I don't post here much because of people like you. I'm not sure what your agenda is, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the truth.

That's right Ray. That's one of the many problems with the alleged rifle purchase that doesn't seem to faze some people. On a separate piece of paper with the PMO -- "Please send to me, A. Hidell, in care of (C/O.) L. H. Oswald"? I don't suppose that's a possibility. Probably not. Oh well, back to the drawing board. --Tommy I "suppose" you can make up anything you want. Doesn't make it true.

If you haven't seen the series "Evidence of Revision", it has a remarkable section on the "Girl in the Polka Dot Dress", including the tapes of a long harassing interview during which a witness fights to tell the truth, but finally, exhausted, recants. *edit: I think this is pulled from the aforementioned documentary.

As Mr. MacRae will tell you, Michael, "The ends justify the means." Sad isn't it? Just checked back in today. Has Duncan volunteered the exif/metadata?

Ian, There isn't much that can be done with the extant images. If we could access original films and get a high resolution scan some information could be gained. but playing with what we have, is just that, playing. We can enhance gray values, but it will NOT add any information of value. There just isn't enough digital information in the images. IMO Mr. LeDoux's work has more credibility than Duncan's for the following simple reason: He hasn't heavily manipulated the PM images as Duncan has. Duncan's images have little to do with the extant original. They have been altered. Contrast has been heavily increased. Areas look to have been rather crudely dodged and burned. There is no way for any viewer to know how much, unless Duncan wants to provide image metadata/exif data for us so we can determine what he did, which I doubt will be volunteered. I don't post here often. I've looked at Duncan's images as one of his, um, fans, has posted them and made outrageous claims about what can be seen at another forum. Manipulated images are just that. Manipulated. No valuable conclusions can be drawn from Duncan's "work".