Michael Cross

Unqualified. Just a quick observation: You know nothing about me, so making that assertion, again, shows that you talk out of your, well orifice. I have a BFA in photography Duncan. I've spent countless hours in darkrooms, and in digital lightrooms. Your crude alteration of the prayer man images, cranking contrast and dodging/burning as you see fit, then leading the viewer with your outline of areas of manipulated gray tones was just that, crude. Meaningless too. Empty. And your shallow attacks on me, rather than trying to refute what I've written are a classic misdirection.

Wow! I can't believe that you believe that. What I heard as I listened to the debate was DiEugenio bringing up difficult-after-difficult-to-explain problems with the WC story, and McAdams replying with "that's another a CTer factoid" followed by WC doctrine, but NO explanation for the difficult-to-explain WC problem. That you believe the way you do on the debate makes *me* wonder if you have LNer tendencies. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Before now I've been agnostic about your inclinations... you just seemed to disagree with a lot of people. DiEugenio was out of his depth with his lack of knowledge of the actual unimpeachable facts of the case. Factoids are not facts, and until he learns this, he will always be a fiction writer and debater. Jim DiEugenio. Wow. The author of some of the most well researched and documented books available. Books FILLED WITH FACTS. Thanks for outing yourself Duncan. That explains a lot. It seems to me that Jim DiEugenio never saw a JFK assassination conspiracy theory he didn't love. Except for maybe The Aliens did it, or the Secret Service guy with the machine gun blew JFK's brains out by mistake, or Greer turned around and shot JFK. But that's about it. --Tommy It seems to me you're making a broad generalization. Easy, and worthless. Point out a theory that Jim promotes that you find to be ludicrous. Put some thought behind your empty words, "Tommy".

"Some" being the operative word. So Michael, does that mean that you class Jim DiEugenio as a Master Debater? Cute. And apparently typical. It means that your dismissal of Jim reveals you as a charlatan. As does your manipulation of the prayer man images, your deceptive outlines, really, from what is obvious, everything about you.

Wow! I can't believe that you believe that. What I heard as I listened to the debate was DiEugenio bringing up difficult-after-difficult-to-explain problems with the WC story, and McAdams replying with "that's another a CTer factoid" followed by WC doctrine, but NO explanation for the difficult-to-explain WC problem. That you believe the way you do on the debate makes *me* wonder if you have LNer tendencies. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Before now I've been agnostic about your inclinations... you just seemed to disagree with a lot of people. DiEugenio was out of his depth with his lack of knowledge of the actual unimpeachable facts of the case. Factoids are not facts, and until he learns this, he will always be a fiction writer and debater. Jim DiEugenio. Wow. The author of some of the most well researched and documented books available. Books FILLED WITH FACTS. Thanks for outing yourself Duncan. That explains a lot.

The gifs you use are spectacular. Thanks. You're welcome. I knew when I posted this someone would say I'm making stuff up, and someone else would say the photos are worthless because everything is fake fake fake, but I hoped that a few would actually take a look. Here's the thing: It took me a few minutes to really see what you've found. But because I WANT to know the truth, I took my time and looked hard, forming my own opinion. In the end I couldn't agree more, the cowlick has no depth and there does appear to be a hole where you describe one.

The gifs you use are spectacular. Thanks.

Can't help you there. The combination of documented lateral location and trajectory cross the center line of the body, based on that WC evidence you love so much.

And here is the perfect example of the type of fallacious argument used by DVP. Yes, body landmarks are fixed, in that they occur on every human body. Human bodies however, vary greatly from one to another. My mastoid process will be in a slight different position than yours based on the shape of our skulls. However, the bigger point is that each body has it's own proportions. My neck is of a different diameter and LENGTH than your neck. 14cm from MY mastoid process will be a different point on MY body that it is on yours.

Interesting thread. Just as the title suggests, DVP has managed to get everyone chasing LHO's weight . . . off topic and already documented.

We're talking about two different grey-suit-wearing men. Please watch it again, Bill, starting at 3:50. At 3:55 Neck Scratcher (Morales?) walks up and stands right behind the guy with the bald spot you're talking about. The guy you're talking about is also wearing a grey suit. The guy you're talking about is wearing glasses and has a bald spot and you can see a few seconds later, after the camera position has changed, that the guy you're talking about is holding a bunch of stuff in his hands.. Both of the men in grey suits can be seen simultaneously at 3:55-3:56 and you can see the bald spot on the guy standing in front of Neck Scratcher (Morales?). I think the guy who is scratching his neck and standing behind the guy with the bald spot is David Sanchez Morales. --Tommy bumped one last time for Bill Simpich Everyone, Please see my new post on Morales at the "Who Killed Bobby?" thread. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13105#entry299808 --Tommy Interesting note about this video: At 3:19 in the background there's a man that is a dead ringer for Bill Shelley.

Manager, Facilities, Security and Visitor Services Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art Kansas City, MO 64111