On 4/22/2012 9:44 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On Apr 22, 6:46 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:There are plenty of spots on the south side of Elm with a clear view.
>> On 4/21/2012 9:03 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
>>> On Apr 20, 1:04 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 19, 2:29 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Bud"<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 2:39 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "claviger"<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> For what it's worth, I was standing on top of a cement block at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> I had a panoramic view, and there was no conspiracy. Terrible
>>>>>>>>>>> You say a couple of lucky shots. Do you mean literally, as in 2 shots?
>>>>>>>>>>> Jean Hill started that way. She and Mooreman claimed two shots. And
>>>>>>>>>> Can you play for me that interview from that afternoon where they both
>>>>>>>>>>> And where is the proof of her standing on the wall? If she was
>>>>>>>>>> Well, don't look for evidence here. McAdams doesn't allow pictures to
>>>>>>>>>> IMHO the girl in blue atop the pedestal is too tall for an eleven year
>>>>>>>>> I don't quite understand how you can think one person can completely
>>>>>>>> Yes, she and the other girl were inches in front of where Euins said he
>>>>>>> Do you see anyone hiding behind the pedestal?
>>>>>>> Thanks for posting this link. As I viewed the Bell slide, I see a person
>>>>>> Excuse me? Did you watch the show The Lost Bullet? Of course not. Then
>>>>> No, he did not lie.
>>>> Have you watched the show The Lost Bullet? Of course not, because you
>>> Of course I've seen the show. That's what I was talking
>>>>> What is it with so many CTs, that they leap right over
>>>>> Euins told the WC that he was standing on the corner of Elm
>>>> The little girl was still there like a statue on the pedestal. If Euins
>>> He could've looked around the side of the pedestal (as Bud's
>> His descriptions and reenactment do not show that. He also could have
> Do you really not get it? Oh, well.
> I've never called Arnold a liar. I think the poor man
>>>>> Euins marked his position on CE 365. A is where he was
>>>> That should have been uploaded by the original poster when citing the
>>>> Not that helpful. It doesn't show exactly where Euins was standing. And
>>>>> Decades later, he remembered it a little differently. There
>>>> And memories can be changed by outside influences. Look up Elizabeth Loftus.
>>> Memories change for all kinds of reasons. Look up Elizabeth
>>>>> There was no reason for Euins to be behind the pedestal on
>>>> The Bell film is not the only one and I did not use it to show where Euins
>>>> Euins is not seen at the corner of Elm and Houston in any film or photo.
>>> That may be, but not everyone in them can be IDed. Other photos
>> And that's why I say that he is slightly different from Gordon Arnold
>>> Are you claiming he didn't see a shooter and made the whole
>> My claim is that he saw one of the black men on the fifth floor and
> So where do you think he was standing, that he could see
But he was not near the pedestal.
Well, what do you find so strange about our pointing out the lies in the
>>>>> Euins reported what he saw to the police right away and gave
>>>> That's why it is so good to have you here. To come to the rescue of the
>>> Nonsense, Tony. It's the CTs who use Euins to suggest that the
>> I have only been able to quote it 278 times. I wish I could get that up
> You've called him a liar, but you want to quote him 4,000
WC thousands of times?
Ya think? Rosemary was short and yet we have spotted her in many films
>>>> But in doing so you
>>> Huh? His EARLIEST statement is that he was standing on the
>> No one even remotely resembling Euins is anywhere near that pedestal as
> No one has positively ID-ed him in any film or photo, but that
and photos. Is that only because she is important? People have even
spotted the two boys in football jackets.
> http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/lostBullet/FIG11_122111.jpgAs far as you know.
>> What are you calling his EARLIEST statement? The typed deposition was
> That's his earliest firsthand statement so far as I know.
> If you want to count statements from Underwood and Biffle, go ahead, butIt goes to his being pressured to change his story. If he had just said
> what does that have to do with where he was standing? In his earliest
up front that he didn't see the shooter, we wouldn't be discussing him
hundreds of years later.
> statement and in his testimony, he didn't place himself behind theWhat he said many years later illustrates Loftus's point.
> pedestal during the time covered by the Bell film. Why do you ignore that
> and go with a reenactment many years later? (Remember what you said about
> Elizabeth Loftus.)
I told you not to ask. Jeez, can't you follow directions?
>>>> You don't tell us when that statement was typed up.
>>> It's dated November 22, 1963.
>> Yeah, at least three hours after the shooting.
>>>> But I can guarantee
>>> The source is a newspaper article saying, "before Euins
>> Fine, and don't dare to investigate it any further than that. And don't
> What cop?
Supported by the photographic evidence. But you'd rather rely on witness
>> You have to be a little suspicious when a witness brings up a detail
>>>> Loftus and other memory experts do tests where they
>>> No! Euins's original statement and testimony are perfectly
>> He was never at that pedestal and he was nowhere near it when the
> An unsupportable claim, Tony.
>>> All I'm saying is, witnesses are often mistaken, and memories
>> I like the way you cover up government corruption. Maybe those billions
> How the heck did I cover up government corruption?? I'm
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.