This info comes via Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book "RECLAIMING HISTORY", in
which Vince (in the index of the book) credits Jean under TWO different
names -- her correct name, and also under "Joan Davison".
Vince, though, has very good things to say about Jean/(Joan), and
references her/her work on several pages within the massive text. (Which I
was glad to see, because Jean's work re. Oswald deserves to be highlighted
in a book like Bugliosi's, IMO.)
So, I guess Jean can be a tad upset at being called "Joan" in the book
(but just one time; all other times Vince gets it right)...but, at the
same time, she probably will be pleased at the many references (11 in
total) she receives in Mr. B.'s book (plus CD-ROM supplemental disc).
(Well, at least he didn't call her "Gene". I guess that's something to be
thankful for...huh "Joan"?) ~wink~
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9c2238388f0a72c3
Joan Davison is actually my evil twin sister. ;-)
In a book of this size and scope there are bound to be errors, and
I'm glad to be mentioned at all. (Usually it's the last name that's
misspelled, and that doesn't bother me, either.)
Jean
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180147344.8...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
As I said before, they had no money left over for proofreading.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180147344.8...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
To the contrary....there are very, very few mistakes (i.e.,
misspellings of any kind) in the book. I was impressed by that very
much.
Of course, there are bound to be a few in a 2800-page mega-tome (as
Jean said). VB misspelled Jean's first name once, and he gets Barb's
name wrong too (the multiple Ks must've messed him up). ;)
And, oddly, he calls John Hinckley "William" (twice), which is
probably the biggest mistake I've seen so far.
I reckon it's Joan who believes that "marxist salute" nonsense; Jean would
never be so silly!<GDR>
Mike :-)
Jean didn't call it a "marxist salute." Joan thinks he was just
showing off his handcuffs. :)
Jean
<g> True.
And let's face it: if he was gonna make some kind of "clenched-fist"
signal, how come it wasn't accompanied with a "Viva Fidel!" or "down with
America!"?
And the idea that he did something similar as he lay dying is REALLY out
there. Mel Ayton has even managed to get Billy Combest seeing this in the
ambulance on the way to Parkland. Just goes to show that it's not only CT
types who have their "factoids."
Joan thinks he was just
> showing off his handcuffs. :)
Maybe Joan's not so bad after all!<BG>
Mike :-)
> Jean
>
I'd like to wish all the Americans here a pleasant and reflective Memorial
Day.
Mike :-)
"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:465a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Is that a rule? Can't have one without the other?
>
> And the idea that he did something similar as he lay dying is REALLY out
> there. Mel Ayton has even managed to get Billy Combest seeing this in the
> ambulance on the way to Parkland. Just goes to show that it's not only CT
> types who have their "factoids."
This probably comes from Anthony Summers, who interviewed Combest in
1978 and quoted him saying, "I got right down on the floor with him, just
literally on my hands and knees. And I asked him if he would like to make
any confession, any statement in connection with the assassination of the
President. ...Several times he responded to me by shaking his head in a
definite manner...." In a footnote Summers added that Combest said
that Oswald accompanied his head-shaking with "a definite clenched-fist
salute."
(Conspiracy, 137 & 547 n. 35)
Jean
It is not necessary to say something to accompany the salute. Sometimes
it is a silent protest. You might remember the 2 black runners who used
the Black Power salute at the Olympics without needing to say anything,
which was misinterpreted as a Marxist salute.
> And the idea that he did something similar as he lay dying is REALLY out
> there. Mel Ayton has even managed to get Billy Combest seeing this in the
> ambulance on the way to Parkland. Just goes to show that it's not only CT
> types who have their "factoids."
>
>
> Joan thinks he was just
>> showing off his handcuffs. :)
>
>
> Maybe Joan's not so bad after all!<BG>
>
Don't ask Jean. She couldn't even see the cop next to Oswald in the photo.
>
>
> Mike :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Jean
>>
>
>
>
>
"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:465a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln sees Oswald "Showing Off" his Marine Corps Ring/I D Bracelet.
Tomnln,
Regarding your....
> tomnln sees Oswald "Showing Off" his Marine Corps Ring/I D Bracelet.<
Just curious,
Do you have documentation/verification as to how/when he communicated
this observation to you?
In person? telephone? e-mail? private letter? your chat sessions?
other?
Or is thus just hearsay, as is prevelant in David Talbot's latest
book, "BROTHERS".
FORE!
GS
Sure, but if he wanted to show off his Marxism would it not be logical to
proclaim such verbally also? And I also seem to recall photos of him in
the handcuffs with his fists clenched at waist level; would that be a
surreptitious salute of some kind?
>>
>> And the idea that he did something similar as he lay dying is REALLY
>> out
>> there. Mel Ayton has even managed to get Billy Combest seeing this in the
>> ambulance on the way to Parkland. Just goes to show that it's not only CT
>> types who have their "factoids."
>
> This probably comes from Anthony Summers, who interviewed Combest in
> 1978 and quoted him saying, "I got right down on the floor with him, just
> literally on my hands and knees. And I asked him if he would like to make
> any confession, any statement in connection with the assassination of the
> President. ...Several times he responded to me by shaking his head in a
> definite manner...." In a footnote Summers added that Combest said
> that Oswald accompanied his head-shaking with "a definite clenched-fist
> salute."
> (Conspiracy, 137 & 547 n. 35)
Yes, though neither he nor anyone else (to my knowledge) mentioned
anything like that at the time. Isn't it vastly more likely (if the
clenched fist thing actually occurred) that a dying man, blood pressure
plummeting from internal injuries, was actually clenching his fist/s in
agony?
Mike :-)
Yeah, but I'm not sure the comparison is valid: standing on a podium on
the infield of a crowded stadium with the Star-Spangled Banner blasting
out -- who would've heard them?
Mike :-)
I can not only see the cop next to Oswald in the photo, I can see
that he is not "holding him by his elbow, thus causing his arm to go up in
the air."
Jean
Thanks for Asking.
"Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1180379074....@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
"Mike" <mikere...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:465b5a0a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
No, you can't. You even claimed that you could not see the cop's arm and
could not see Oswald's elbow.
The point is that a salute does not require saying anything.
> Mike :-)
Thanks. And most people forget what May 29th is. No celebrations. No
parades. No memorials.
Yeah. I have to admit that I only remembered halfway through the day.
Mike :-)
True. And my point is that considering Oswald's raised cuffed hands as a
salute of some kind -- or even just defiance -- is reaching. And considering
a dying man's clenched fist as something similar is absurd.
The other point that I meant to make is that a clenched-fist salute would be
made with the fingers facing forward, not laterally.
Mike :-)
No, I said I don't see a cop "holding him by his elbow, thus
causing his arm to go up."
http://www.dallasnews.com/photostore/dmn.jfk.8.64.html
Jean
>
Several years ago the Kennedy family made their wishes known in The Boston
Globe that people should commemorate the date of his birth instead of the
date of his death. So, what did the Kennedy family do yesterday which made
all the newspapers and TV? Nothing. Lead by example, not rhetoric.