New interview at Sixth Floor Museum, last November.
New interview at Sixth Floor Museum, last November.
Thanks for the heads up. I looked at the list of the oral history witnesses. They have links to two of your interviews up, but no link yet for the latest interview. It has been about six months since last November. Hopefully they will make it available soon.
With all due respect to the Sixth Floor Museum and its Oral History Project, and to the people who participate, I think it's all almost entirely bogus.
I happen to have - hold your applause - a very solid intellect, an advanced education, and by any standard a wonderful memory, BUT:
I was discussing with a good friend just yesterday how FANTASTICALLY fallible our memories are. When I try to piece together events of 30, 40, 50 years ago - events I think I recall precisely - I discover my "memories" are a confused and conflated mess that simply can't be trusted. It's absolutely comical. Events A, B and C actually happened years apart, but I have conflated them into a single event. The "memories" of my friend, a retired hydrologist who is eight years younger than I, are an even bigger mess.
The example that started the discussion with my friend was classic: When we lived in Rochester, NY in 1985-86, my late wife and I always watched "This Week with David Brinkley" on Sunday morning. I DISTINCTLY remember watching Norah O'Donnell and thinking she was quite a cutie. Bill Kristol was also on, and my wife liked him. Yesterday, I saw Norah and thought she still looked pretty good for someone who was on TV almost 40 years ago. Oops, Norah is only 51 and was NEVER on "This Week." Bill Kristol wasn't on until 1996, by which time I was living in my present home and had moved twice since Rochester. I had confidently conflated an entire series of memories into one, and it happens all the time.
I don't care HOW impactful someone thinks the JFKA was, there is NO WAY memories 30, 40, 50, 60 years later can be trusted. I could regale the Sixth Floor Museum with plausible-sounding "memories" of the JFKA, but all I'm at least pretty sure I remember is that I was eating lunch in the outside lunch area at Alice Vail Junior High in Tucson. Who told us, who I was with, what I was wearing, what I was eating, how I and others reacted, what we were doing 5 minutes before and 5 minutes after - FORGET ABOUT IT.
These characters who come out of the woodwork years after the fact are simply a nuisance. I don't care if what they say is LN-supportive or CT-supportive, it just confuses the issue and should be ignored. I'm looking at YOU, Don Teel Curtis, Dentist of Destiny.
Boo, hiss!!! I have to “respectfully” disagree with you to a certain extent. I get what you are saying and agree with some of it. Our memories are quite fallible. However ignoring accounts of witnesses who were actually there is like sticking your own head in a hole in the ground. I would much prefer to hear from actual witnesses than read about the opinions of people who were not there when the assassination happened. I believe that we should carefully consider what the actual witness accounts contain, compare it with other evidence, and judge each individual item accordingly, instead of just prejudging and ignoring their accounts due to “pre-conceived old fallible memories.” Only after due process should we consider whether or not to discount some or all of what the witness accounts contain. There are a lot of conflicting accounts, that’s typical and to be expected. It is also why anyone who wishes to hunt for accounts that fit their own pet ideas (aka: bias confirmation) can do so and usually find at least a little thread to hang on to. But they are only fooling themselves if they do not consider the totality of the evidence. Actual witnesses who were there always get my full attention.
With respect to the memories of 11/22/63 eyewitnesses, I find their peripheral memories to be the most valuable. Glover says that she has no memory of Euins being crouched down below her standing position on the stone pedestal. And she adds that she would have remembered seeing him in this position at that point in time. This is Important Eyewitness Information. Virgin Information. There are far too many researchers looking for a smoking gun of some sort. The remaining eyewitnesses have peripheral memories such as Glover's "No Euins" that has been completely ignored. This is why the Sixth Floor interviews consistently produce Nothing of note. The probing questions are Not Asked. Questions like: (1) Did you see the Umbrella Man? (2) Did you see the Dark Complected Man? (3) Did you see SA Lem Johns jump out of the LBJ SS Car and run down Elm St toward the JFK Limo? (4) Did you smell Gun Powder? (5) Where did you park? (6) What did you see when returning to your car? etc. It's "dots" of information such as this that will solve this case. The Sixth Floor Museum interviews have always been more about selling tickets/$$ and PR vs unearthing real information.
With respect to the memories of 11/22/63 eyewitnesses, I find their peripheral memories to be the most valuable. Glover says that she has no memory of Euins being crouched down below her standing position on the stone pedestal. And she adds that she would have remembered seeing him in this position at that point in time. This is Important Eyewitness Information. Virgin Information. There are far too many researchers looking for a smoking gun of some sort. The remaining eyewitnesses have peripheral memories such as Glover's "No Euins" that has been completely ignored. This is why the Sixth Floor interviews consistently produce Nothing of note. The probing questions are Not Asked. Questions like: (1) Did you see the Umbrella Man? (2) Did you see the Dark Complected Man? (3) Did you see SA Lem Johns jump out of the LBJ SS Car and run down Elm St toward the JFK Limo? (4) Did you smell Gun Powder? (5) Where did you park? (6) What did you see when returning to your car? etc. It's "dots" of information such as this that will solve this case. The Sixth Floor Museum interviews have always been more about selling tickets/$$ and PR vs unearthing real information.
Euins is an assassination eyewitness that claims he saw shots being fired from the TSBD 6th Floor sniper's nest. He claimed he crouched next to the Glover Pedestal for cover. Glover directly refutes his Pedestal story. You do Not believe a key JFK Assassination eyewitness being discredited is "significant"? This, and your blanket rejecting any memory dating back before 1965 would make your being seated on a jury an extremely tough sell.
The nice thing with Buell Frazier and Dentist Don is that we can see how their "memories" have evolved since 1963 or 1964 and can recognize the obvious fact that memories and truth don't get better with time. They are lying, simple as that, and those of us who aren't wearing tinfoil beanies with propellors on top know it. Those who first surface 30, 40, 50 or more years after the assassination are impossible to cross-reference in this manner. By legal evidentiary standards, they have zero credibility. They may not even be intentionally fabricating, but not only are memories extremely fallible but every one of us, including me, has been subjected to 60+ years of media coverage of the JFKA, mostly CT-oriented because that's more exciting than saying the WC got it right. I just don't think these latter-day witnesses add anything and serve only to confuse. I say again, the number of these characters who have led serious researchers on wild goose chases in the UFO field is just astonishing.
I have sometimes wondered if Euins could have been sitting on the other pedestal and just mistakenly designated the wrong pedestal due to a faulty memory. See yellow arrow in the image below. (Click on the frame to enlarge it because the yellow arrow I'm talking about is hard to see.)
(https://i.vgy.me/CKUfCZ.jpg)
Unfortunately, that other pedestal is on the other side of the horseshoe-shaped reflecting pool.
Storing,
Do you think the footage showing Euins with the police right after the assassination was faked?
I have sometimes wondered if Euins could have been sitting on the other pedestal and just mistakenly designated the wrong pedestal due to a faulty memory. See yellow arrow in the image below.
(https://i.vgy.me/CKUfCZ.jpg)
Euins is an assassination eyewitness that claims he saw shots being fired from the TSBD 6th Floor sniper's nest. He claimed he crouched next to the Glover Pedestal for cover. Glover directly refutes his Pedestal story. You do Not believe a key JFK Assassination eyewitness being discredited is "significant"? This, and your blanket rejecting any memory dating back before 1965 would make your being seated on a jury an extremely tough sell.
The Glover Pedestal? Is there a plaque there now? :) I want to tread lightly, because I don't want to appear to be engaging in character assassination of Toni Glover. The fact is, Amos Lee Euins told his story the day of the JFKA, was interviewed twice by the FBI, and testified to the WC. Yes, he wasn't 100% consistent, but after all that I find it difficult to believe a 15-year-old Black kid was telling whoppers about where he was. Toni Glover says nothing until the mid-1990s, 30 years after the JFKA, surfaces in a much larger way around the 50th anniversary (including appearing at the Lancer conference), is now writing or has written a book about being "The Girl in Blue." and is doing her third interview for the Sixth Floor Museum and clearly enjoying her moment in the sun. She "directly refutes" Euins' account with "memories" that are 50 or more years old and relate to a moment in time when she was 11 years old. Her assertion that she would have noticed and recalled Euins if he'd been there seems highly unlikely to me. There were some 72,000 Blacks in Dallas in 1963; they weren't exactly scarce. Yes, if I were on a jury I would be an extremely tough sell for Glover's "memories" having any bearing at all on where Euins actually was. On this point, what she says about Euins amounts to no more than "Hey, I was an 11-year-old kid at the time and 30-50 years later I have no recollection of him." OK, whoop-de-doo.
And your point is?
Devil's Advocate Rhetorical Question: Would Euins have been able to see the Sniper's Nest window if Glover and her mother had been standing on the pedestal at the time?
The Glover Pedestal? Is there a plaque there now? :) I want to tread lightly, because I don't want to appear to be engaging in character assassination of Toni Glover. The fact is, Amos Lee Euins told his story the day of the JFKA, was interviewed twice by the FBI, and testified to the WC. Yes, he wasn't 100% consistent, but after all that I find it difficult to believe a 15-year-old Black kid was telling whoppers about where he was. Toni Glover says nothing until the mid-1990s, 30 years after the JFKA, surfaces in a much larger way around the 50th anniversary (including appearing at the Lancer conference), is now writing or has written a book about being "The Girl in Blue." and is doing her third interview for the Sixth Floor Museum and clearly enjoying her moment in the sun. She "directly refutes" Euins' account with "memories" that are 50 or more years old and relate to a moment in time when she was 11 years old. Her assertion that she would have noticed and recalled Euins if he'd been there seems highly unlikely to me. There were some 72,000 Blacks in Dallas in 1963; they weren't exactly scarce. Yes, if I were on a jury I would be an extremely tough sell for Glover's "memories" having any bearing at all on where Euins actually was. On this point, what she says about Euins amounts to no more than "Hey, I was an 11-year-old kid at the time and 30-50 years later I have no recollection of him." OK, whoop-de-doo.
It contradicts Euin's story, as told by him in "JFK: The Lost Bullet" (which you can watch with your very own eyes), as to how he walked down the sidewalk and crouched behind the pedestal.
It contradicts Euin's story, as told by him in "JFK: The Lost Bullet" (which you can watch with your very own eyes), as to how he walked down the sidewalk and crouched behind the pedestal.
Come on now. She's standing on that pedestal with her Mom. They both had to climb Down from that pedestal. And you do not think she would notice a Kid squatted down below her, scrunched up against this same pedestal? Just because she was 11 yrs old does Not make her a "ding bat", Archie.
But that's Dale Myers' whole point in the article I linked, which is about "The Lost Bullet." https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2012/01/ As with Glover, I'm really not interested in what Euins said in 2011 when he was filming a documentary with Max Holland and National Geographic. Or at least I'm much less interested than what he said in 1963-64. Apparently, Euins is still living in Mesquite, TX. Let's track him down and waterboard him 'til he fesses up. Maybe we can take Glover along and see if it jogs her memory.
Forget all the above. I've done a 180. What Toni Glover needs is an agent. That would be me. We're flushing "Girl in Blue." That title is going nowhere fast. It's now "Crime Kid: How My 11-Year-Old Brain Solved the Murder of JFK." Nice, yes? A sequel, "Amos Lee Euins: Punk Liar," is in the works (that's just a tentative title - we'll bounce it off a couple of focus groups). Forget the freebie interviews, Sixth Floor Museum and others. All requests to interview Ms. Glover now go through me, and they won't be free. We're working with the City of Dallas and Oliver Stone to have the Glover Pedestal of Freedom designated a National Historical Site with a highly realistic AI robot Toni on top. That's all the Glover news for now, but stay tuned. Moving on to finalizing the agency contract with Dentist Don and Edna, but they're tough customers. Nobody - NOBODY - whacks me down to a 3% fee, Dentist Don, as you're about to learn.
You are doing this Forum a disservice. Here we have an actual 11/22/63 eyewitness that is actively participating in a discussion on this Forum, and what do you do? You attack her. This is why actively instrumental figures in the JFK Assassination such as Gary Mack bailed out around here. Discussion is a very good thing. Discussion involving individual(s) that were actually eyewitnesses to the assassination is invaluable. Put away the meat cleaver and if necessary employ a gag. You are not cute, and not helping solve this case.
I agree. Having Toni Glover here is a real treat. I try to encourage her participation. Why Lance is behaving like he is towards her is a mystery to me. :-X
Simple:
1. I'm incorrigible.
2. The lovely and talented Ms. Glover has precisely nothing to add to the JFKA equation, as should be clear by now.
3. Any witness who surfaces after 30 years or more can expect to be viewed with a large grain of salt and to be mercilessly cross-examined, not coddled. Just from what I have shown, the lovely and talented Ms. Glover would be reamed, steamed, sliced, diced, and reduced to tearful rubble on actual cross-examination if her testimony were "Amos Lee Euins wasn't there." It's clear from her latest post that her testimony would not be this definitive.
4. Apart from #'s 1-3 above, this, like the Saga of Dentist Don, is yet another example of CT enthusiasts latching onto something that is completely inconsequential even if true and magnifying it into a veritable Conspiracy Factoid. Euins wasn't where he said he was! He couldn't have seen what he said he saw! Oswald is innocent! Really, ya think - all because some 11-year-old kid who surfaced 30 years later doesn't recall seeing him? If Euins was actually having a cheeseburger at Keller's Drive-In, how would this change anything?
I have nothing against the lovely and talented Ms. G. She's enjoying and milking her moment in the sun like all the rest. Certainly, she should be welcome here, but subject to the same scrutiny as anyone else.
Actually, I believe Ms. G and think poor old Euins was probably at the other pedestal (henceforth the Euins Pedestal of Infamy) to the left of Howard Brennan. In his obsessive quest to demolish Max Holland and the "Lost Bullet," Dale Myers goes through Euins' story in great depth (charitably describing him as "malleable"): https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2012/01/. When you view WC Exhibit 365 with Euins' markings (at Myers' site), it is a bit disorienting. Pat Speer identifies Euins sitting on the pedestal opposite Glover, and my guess would be that Euins simply got turned around. Good Lord, he was a 15-year-old Black kid suddenly caught up in the event of the century, and no one seems to have been as obsessively concerned as modern CTers with EXACTLY where he was standing. If his story has morphed over the years - well, hey, join the club, Amos Lee. More to the point, as set forth in #4 above, WHO CARES?
With that, my response is as it always is when my little contributions are deemed offensive: Oh, boo-hoo. Grow up. Seriously, I welcome Toni Glover and look forward to her contributions getting better and better. Too bad David Lifton isn't around to read them.
You are not cute, and not helping solve this case.
Wait a minute, why do I have to put up with this vicious sort of stuff???
For the record, I'm cuter than hell in almost every way.
To be honest, I don't really view my mission as "helping solve the case." I'm waiting for someone to make a plausible case that it hasn't been solved. In the meantime, I'm just having fun and, well, letting my natural cuteness run amuck.
Remember, there is that handy "Ignore" feature.
Seriously, I welcome Toni Glover and look forward to her contributions getting better and better.
Then, I suggest trying to make her feel comfortable here. Question her all you wish. Attempting to belittle her just because you have some preconceived ideas is ridiculous.
FEEL COMFORTABLE? You're speaking as though she were still an 11-year-old.
Good Lord, the woman has appeared at CT conferences, given three interviews at the Sixth Floor Museum, spoken to newspapers, is peddling a book, has a Ph.D. and is a university professor.
FEEL COMFORTABLE???
Has anyone worried about making dear old Lance or anyone else feel comfortable? (Oh, boo-hoo, Lance. Grow up.)
This woman was an 11-year-old kid who saw, more or less, what everyone else in Dealey Plaza saw on that day. You folks write as though some combination of the Virgin Mary and Taylor Swift were blessing us with her exalted presence.
Euins gave WC Testimony as to seeing shot(s) fired from the TSBD sniper's nest. That's where his value lies. If Euins is mistaken as to where he was standing inside Dealey Plaza when he saw the shots fired, maybe he is mistaken as to actually seeing WHERE those shots were fired from? There were reports of shots being fired from the 4th and 2nd floor of the TSBD. Maybe Euins actually saw shot(s) being fired from either of those floors? I have never heard/read anything out of Euins with respect to his being on Top of a pedestal around that pool. That Black Kid on the other pedestal was sitting On Top of that pedestal. I believe this rules out Euins being confused as to which pedestal he claims to have crouched behind. On the other hand, there is maybe 2-3 frames early-on in the Darnell film showing what looks like a young kid, maybe Black, sitting down at the bottom of that circular walling that surrounds the water pool. This figure/kid? looks to be sitting below where the man wearing the Hard Hat was sitting on top of that circular wall on the Zapruder Film. Euins could Not have hung around that pedestal/circular wall very long. Officer Harkness found Euins back inside the railroad yard. Harkness made a 12:36 police radio transmission that he had a kid that saw shots being fired from the TSBD. (paraphrasing). This 12:36 Harkness radio transmission gives Euins roughly 6 minutes, (probably less), to travel from that circular wall/pedestal? to the railroad yard where Officer Harkness found him. If that is Euins on the Darnell film sitting at the bottom of the circular wall, he has even less time. That portion of the Darnell Film that shows the kid at the bottom of the circular wall would be roughly 1 minute after the Kill Shot.
This is what your ridiculous behavior makes you look like to others:
(https://i.vgy.me/OZ2uQ3.jpg)
I hope you are better than that. Time will tell…
Oh, COME ON. Are you related to Toni Glover or something?
Actually, I'm NOT better than that, but that should have been apparent long before now. Neither, for that matter, are Iacoletti, Weidmann, Capasse or any of their assorted sock puppets. For that matter, when were THEY or any of the other CTers here handled with the kid gloves with which you think Ms. Glover should be handled? (Yes, I know she's not a CTer, which makes this all even goofier. Should she be off-limits because she's NOT a CTer?)
In legal circles, what your graphic characterizes as "hurting others" is referred to as "cross-examination." It would indeed be a kinder and gentler world if the Dentist Dons could tell their stories without challenge or scrutiny, but the downside is that a lot of people would be believing a lot of crap. Witness the fallout of Dentist Don's latest testimony, where he was not subjected to anything resembling cross-examination. Voila, his crap is headline-worthy bombshell stuff.
I've looked through my posts here and see nothing I would characterize as belittling toward Toni Glover. Belittling, if at all, toward those who would make much of someone who clearly has little or nothing to add to what is already known. If folks here are interested in what a 70-something woman recalls in 2025 about what she saw as an 11-year-old kid in 1963, and believes her memories are not subject to the fallibility that mine seem to be, or to the influence of now nearly 30 years of involvement with the JFKA research community - well, OK, super!
If you want warm, fuzzy and cuddly, don't invite retired litigators to your party.
Let's say Euins was a bald-faced liar, saw nothing at all, and made up his entire story. Does this change anything? Not that I can see.
I'm having a bit of difficulty following your logic. You want Euins to be someplace other than where he said he was but also to have seen a gunman at a lower floor. The logic seems to be, "If he was mistaken about A, perhaps he was mistaken about B" - right? That's pretty thin, amounting to "There may have been a gunman on one of the lower floors because Euins was mistaken about where he was." We're going to credit him with having seen a gunman, but speculate he was mistaken about the floor because he was mistaken about where he was. I don't see that Euins adds anything at all to the equation, does he? Why not just say there may have been a gunman on one of the lower floors because others thought they heard shots from there? Unless the shots were fired from the SE corner window of those lower floors, Euins would have to be mistaken not only about the floor but the window as well.
I'm also not following the timing thing. I would think a casual stroll from the pedestal area to the railroad yard would take no more than a couple of minutes. What am I missing?
My guess is, Euins was (1) a young Black guy who was overwhelmed by what had just occurred and completely out of his depth when he found himself confronted by the DPD, Sheriff, FBI and WC; (2) telling his story to the best of his recollection but also highly "malleable" (Myers' term) given the intimidating circumstances in which he found himself; (3) initially probably conflating one of the Blacks in the fifth floor SE window with the shots from the sixth; and (4) like many witnesses, increasingly "malleable" as the years passed. To me, no big deal. He is still alive and living in Batch, TX, and appears to have had a few DUI-type issues as recently as 2019. Seriously, he and Toni Glover should have lunch at Denny's, see if they can get their stories straight, and get back to us.
Lance, I am simply saying that I think you could (if you wanted to) alter your “style” a bit, and thereby help us encourage Toni Glover to share her memories of her experiences. Some of the folks around here deserve, and appear to relish, getting the “Lance Payette treatment”. Please try to tone it down a bit and let those of us who want to interact with Toni Glover have a better chance to do so. Thank you.
Regarding the Euins "tick-tock" to the railroad yard, you are Only considering the distance. On the Darnell frames showing the kid sitting at the bottom of the wall, this segment also shows a Press Bus on Houston St. It looks like the Bus has just completed the turn from Main onto Houston. So, there is a lot of the Motorcade that needs to pass Euins before he could get across Elm St and then get back inside the railroad yard where Officer Harkness found him. There's a photo of Euins among the throng of people inside the railroad yard, so there's no question he did get back there. I wonder if maybe he heard "chatter" back there and then repeated what he heard. The 15 yr old's story has changed over time. And now there is a question regarding his actually crouching behind the Perch. Plus, there are No images showing Euins to be in position to see a shooter firing shot(s) from the sniper's nest. The WC trotting a witness out like Euins, reflects on the strength of the case they were trying to sell to the American Publc.
Sure, that's fair enough. From now on, my wife, who is at least 40% less snarky than I, will review all future posts before I hit the button. Believe it or not, this is EXACTLY what Mark Twain's wife Livy did for years. Twain was just about the darkest, nastiest, snarliest character who ever lived, and Livy actually did edit out about 10% of all he wrote, books and letters alike. After she died, he ran amuck and pretty much destroyed his funny-guy reputation. But I digress ...
I see that on the "The girl in blue" thread, which I somehow failed to rudely interrupt, Toni acknowledged the fallibility of memory, including hers. So, I will henceforth cut her some slack and encourage her to share her memories, which I will simply point out in advance would have to be shaky at best. She may ask me anything she likes about my 11th year, and I'll see what I can dredge up.
But now back to Euins. This is Pat Speer's take on him: https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-7b-more-pieces-in-the-plaza. His discussion starts well down the page but just do a "find on page" for Euins and you'll be there.
Pat thinks the Bell and Martin films (of which he has GIFs) show Euins sitting on the pedestal to the left of the Glover pedestal, and it certainly looks like him to me. Why is this not a perfectly acceptable solution? Toni is accurate as far as she goes, Euins was simply a bit confused, and all the brouhaha is much ado about nothing except to those who insist on magnifying minor discrepancies into something dark and sinister.
One mystery is the guy who blocked Toni (and her mother?) from leaving the pedestal. In the GIFs, I see no one around. Is the suggestion that this was something sinister, or could he simply have been trying to protect them in the midst of chaos?
(Wow, that Happye Face avatar gets old fast. I'm going to find something a little more dignified. There, that's better.)
I don't know what definition films you have looked at showing that kid sitting on top of the pedestal close to the steps leading down to Elm St. There are a lot of trashy images of that kid/pedestal. Groden had a pretty crappy version back in the day. The better definition films, to my eye, show a younger/smaller kid than Euins. Euins said he was standing somewhere along Houston St. That pedestal with the kid on top is closer to Elm St vs Houston St.
I have seen images showing the (S) side of Elm St following the assassination. There's what appears to be a Black kid pointing in the direction of the TSBD, and I believe later on this same kid then runs across Elm St toward the Grassy Knoll between the Ft Worth Sign and the Triple Underpass. This kid on the (S) side of Elm appears to be bigger than the kid on the pedestal. Even before Glover stepped forward, I had read a Euins HSCA interview that focused on his claiming he had a camera that day. And he denied nothing connected to the camera story. He just said something along the lines of losing track of the camera that day and that he did not take any photo(s) of JFK, the Motorcade, TSBD, etc. His 11/22/63 "stories" are sketchy.
There's a photo of Euins among the throng of people inside the railroad yard, so there's no question he did get back there. .
???
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Murrayscan2.jpg)
You guys, I’d like to take address a couple of things folks have said I did, that just is not true, even though it is not about Euins.
There are frames of me in the Hughes film with my hands over my head. A couple of years ago I ran across a discussion thread that said, “Is she signaling the assassin?” I assure you I was not. I was desperately trying to get Kennedy to look at me one more time before he disappeared behind a tree. Someone else recently contacted me about the same frames and asked me who I was waving at in the Hughes film. I said, “the president.” She said, “no. you’re waving at someone on the steps of the TSBD.” I said, “No. I was waving at the president and Jacque.” She said, “No! you’re waving at someone on the front steps, and they wave back.” What?!? I said, “I didn’t know anyone on the steps of the TSBD. I was waving at the president and Jacque. She said, “no, there’s a .gif that shows you waving at somebody on the steps, and they wave back!” “I DID NOT KNOW ANYONE ON THE STEPS OF THE TSBD, AND I DID NOT WAVE AT THEM.” The thing kept going back and forth, I won’t bore you with it. The point being, I have no idea what .gif she’s talking about or who created it, but to be crystal clear,
1. I was eleven. I did not know any of the adults standing on the TSBD front steps.
2. I did not signal the assassin. I was just a kid delirious because they had smiled and waved, and I wanted them to do it again.
Welcome to my world.
The insanity abounds, doesn’t it? We see this type of thing a lot on the forum. Your experience shows conclusively that absolutely nothing will change some of their minds. If they will not believe you (regarding your own actions), then I believe that they are a hopeless cause.
Hi Duncan,
I agree with you that Mr. Euins was in the RR yard after the assassination. He was also captured in another photograph that was taken behind the knoll, and he's near Hugh Betzner, who was also captured in the same photograph.
Mr. Euins is carrying something dark in color in his left hand, as captured in this film clip. Very could be the hat, or the camera he mentioned.
I firmly believe that Euins had the pedestals confused, and that he is the young man captured in the Martin, Bell and Dorman films seated on the opposite side of where Toni Glover was standing with her mother.
(https://i.imgur.com/awIUhsN.gif)
Yes, but even worse is this forum is the equivalent of the Oxford Debating Society compared to the other assassination sites. There are some reasonable/thoughtful and sincere conspiracy believers or lone assassin critics but they are shouted down by the radicals, by the extremists who called the sober ones disinformation agents or corrupt.
The insanity abounds, doesn’t it? We see this type of thing a lot on the forum. Your experience shows conclusively that absolutely nothing will change some of their minds. If they will not believe you (regarding your own actions), then I believe that they are a hopeless cause.
Yes, but even worse is this forum is the equivalent of the Oxford Debating Society compared to the other assassination sites. There are some reasonable/thoughtful and sincere conspiracy believers or lone assassin critics but they are shouted down by the radicals, by the extremists who called the sober ones disinformation agents or corrupt.
As we see here, this is what they do: Make a charge and force everyone to run around and disprove it. It's not up to them to prove their conspiracy claims; you have to disprove their allegation. And of course since their allegation is simply based on their interpretation and their judgment it's impossible to do. How do you dissuade a conspiracy believer from what they insist is evidence of their conspiracy? It's almost impossible.
How many more times do we need to prove the backyard photos are authentic? How many more studies? Yet, they reject them all. Because the photos "look funny" to them. Ms. Glover is accused of being involved. She was 11 for crissake. How does she disprove this, prove a negative? Zapruder was involved. Euins. On and on. We have a near endless series of these claims that they repeatedly bring up. Whack a conspiracy mole.
Watch the 2021 documentary JFK Revisited (https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Revisited-Through-Looking-Glass/dp/B0DBBLXVH9)
Toni, one of the items that remains unsolved is the timing of the first shot. I have seen your latest SFM interview and remember that you said that thought it was a backfire due to all the nearby motorcycles and other noise. I believe you have also said that the limo had gone out of your sight when the first shot was heard. What I would like to ask you is about any specific reactions, from the people near you, due to the first shot, that you might have noticed and remember.
Here is a GIF clip from the Zapruder film that was prepared by Jerry Organ. It shows some reactions that some of us believe might be due to the first shot.
(https://i.vgy.me/F5WjHD.gif)
In the above clip we see the lady in the gold jacket appear to suddenly jump and then raise her hand to her mouth like a lot of people do when surprised, etc. Also on the left side (not circled) is a lady who at the very beginning spins her head around extremely quickly and then turns her head back around and keeps on walking. On the right side near the bottom are two older ladies who appear to be pointing up towards the window where the shots were fired from. There are some other subtle reactions that Jerry Organ circled.
Anyway, I am wondering if you might remember any specific reactions due to the first shot that might could be seen in the photographic record. Please let us know. Thanks!
On the right side near the bottom are two older ladies who appear to be pointing up towards the window where the shots were fired from.
Hi Charles... Something to consider...
The "two older ladies" seem to simply be waving to the occupants in the Vice President's car (since the President's limo has very obviously passed by already). Just my opinion.
Toni, one of the items that remains unsolved is the timing of the first shot. I have seen your latest SFM interview and remember that you said that thought it was a backfire due to all the nearby motorcycles and other noise. I believe you have also said that the limo had gone out of your sight when the first shot was heard. What I would like to ask you is about any specific reactions, from the people near you, due to the first shot, that you might have noticed and remember.The jfk limo would have been out of sight of Toni at Z189, blocked by the large high concrete pillar near the water feature (as per my copy of the Dealey Plaza platt)(& as per my copy of someone's estimates of the progress of the jfk limo).
Here is a GIF clip from the Zapruder film that was prepared by Jerry Organ. It shows some reactions that some of us believe might be due to the first shot.
(https://i.vgy.me/F5WjHD.gif)
In the above clip we see the lady in the gold jacket appear to suddenly jump and then raise her hand to her mouth like a lot of people do when surprised, etc. Also on the left side (not circled) is a lady who at the very beginning spins her head around extremely quickly and then turns her head back around and keeps on walking. On the right side near the bottom are two older ladies who appear to be pointing up towards the window where the shots were fired from. There are some other subtle reactions that Jerry Organ circled.
Anyway, I am wondering if you might remember any specific reactions due to the first shot that might could be seen in the photographic record. Please let us know. Thanks!
It's not rocket science.Yes before Z180. Or/& before Z189.
Toni's recollection of the limo being out of sight at the time of the first shot rules out a first shot before z180.
We can add that to the mountain of evidence ruling out a first shot before z222
The jfk limo would have been out of sight of Toni at Z189, blocked by the large high concrete pillar near the water feature (as per my copy of the Dealey Plaza platt)(& as per my copy of someone's estimates of the progress of the jfk limo).
Thus according to Toni the giff & reactions (which starts at say Z164 & ends at say Z194) were before the first shot.
Anyhow, we know that Oswald fired at about pseudo Z105 to Z110, which accords with reactions at Z164 to Z194 (but an early shot at Z105-Z110 duznt accord with Toni's memory).
If the jfk limo went out of sight (at say Z189)(behind the large pillar), then it would have to emerge into sight before Z313 if Toni saw the headshot.
The platt etc suggests that the jfk limo emerges at Z230 (thus jfk was hidden from Toni from Z189 to Z230).
A modern street view shows a clear view from Toni's pedestal to the jfk limo to the left of the large pillar. The view was probly much the same in 1963.
Did Toni ever mention that the jfk limo emerged into sight just before the headshot?
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@32.779324,-96.808041,234.41h,8.7p,1.16z,hiw1Fs3ERc35ZKiXEV3Jig
Ok yes that looks ok.
Did Toni ever mention that the jfk limo emerged into sight just before the headshot?
Yes, in the latest SFM interview (which I believe Duncan provided a link to earlier in this thread) Toni describes seeing the head shot by leaning a bit to her left to see around the pillar. Also, from Zapruder’s camera view, James Hackerott showed us that Toni’s left arm can be seen. So I don’t think that there is any question about it, this appears to be a fact.
I am Not sure why some of you wantta get into "mights" and "maybes". As Joe Friday used to say, "Just the Facts mam, just the Facts". This shoulda/woulda stuff is "chasing your tail" worthy.No one around here has my grasp of English.
Until somebody stands on the Glover Perch and films Toward/Down Elm St in order to replicate Glover's LOS, everybody is just flat-out guessing. Until we see that film reconstruction, Glover's recollection stands as to what she said she witnessed.
He is trying to impeach Euins' credibility, Euins' account of what he saw, where he was. Euins said all of the shots came from that sixth floor window and nowhere else. If that's true then the conspiracy house of cards, at least regarding other shooters, completely collapses. No second shooter, no shots from other locations. One shooter. From that window.
Specifically what is in question?
He is trying to impeach Euins' credibility, Euins' account of what he saw, where he was. Euins said all of the shots came from that sixth floor window and nowhere else. If that's true then the conspiracy house of cards, at least regarding other shooters, completely collapses. No second shooter, no shots from other locations. One shooter. From that window.
Euins has to be attacked and Ms. Glover is the weapon to use.
Until somebody stands on the Glover Perch and films Toward/Down Elm St in order to replicate Glover's LOS, everybody is just flat-out guessing.
Apparently it has to do with the first shot, i.e., when it took place. Her line of sight down Elm and her account of when she heard the first shot shows that it wasn't so early, that it was later. The limo was further down Elm. That first shot was not at circa Z-150 or earlier.
Okay, but I don’t see what that has to do with Toni’s line of sight down Elm Street.
Those who are flat-out guessing, of course, include Toni.
As I re-read my earlier posts on this thread, I am struck by one thing: They are spot on. A tad harsh, perhaps (for which I apologized to Toni in a PM with no response), but otherwise DEAD SPOT ON.
I would venture a guess that, if photos of the scene were not extant, Toni could not even tell you what she was wearing. No way, Jose. What was I wearing on the day of the JFKA, the day I proposed to my wife, the day some punk rearended my GTO at 40 mph, or the day I was admitted to the bar? I have NO idea, not the faintest recollection. Maybe I was wearing my favorite blue coat! Yes, I think perhaps I was, on all four occasions.
But now, "Toni's recollection of the limo being out of sight before the first shot" is DEFINITIVE, I tell ya. It "rules out a first shot before Z180," I tell ya. RULES IT OUT, I tell ya.
Toni's memory of the position of the limo and her perception of the first shot are LOCKED IN, I tell ya. In fact, Toni's memory is probably better than Zapruder's film!
This is simply absurd. Can you really not see this? The recollections of a 73-year-old woman of roughly ten seconds of her life at age 11 are being used to prop up your conspiracy theories. What, hello? And said woman "just happens" do be publishing a book that would have minimal publishing or sales prospects if the theme were simply "Someone pointed out to me years later that I'm the kid in a blue coat standing on a pedestal in front of the TSBD, but I have only the vaguest recollection of being there."
An Eyewitness "Remembering" what they saw, is much different than someone making a "Guess" or an "Educated GUESS". Put yourself in the jury box.
Apparently it has to do with the first shot, i.e., when it took place. Her line of sight down Elm and her account of when she heard the first shot shows that it wasn't so early, that it was later. The limo was further down Elm. That first shot was not at circa Z-150 or earlier.
So the timing for, among other things, the single bullet, doesn't work. The first and second shots were closer together: meaning two shooters. I think that's where this is going.
Forget all the above. I've done a 180. What Toni Glover needs is an agent. That would be me. We're flushing "Girl in Blue." That title is going nowhere fast. It's now "Crime Kid: How My 11-Year-Old Brain Solved the Murder of JFK." Nice, yes? A sequel, "Amos Lee Euins: Punk Liar," is in the works (that's just a tentative title - we'll bounce it off a couple of focus groups). Forget the freebie interviews, Sixth Floor Museum and others. All requests to interview Ms. Glover now go through me, and they won't be free. We're working with the City of Dallas and Oliver Stone to have the Glover Pedestal of Freedom designated a National Historical Site with a highly realistic AI robot Toni on top. That's all the Glover news for now, but stay tuned. Moving on to finalizing the agency contract with Dentist Don and Edna, but they're tough customers. Nobody - NOBODY - whacks me down to a 3% fee, Dentist Don, as you're about to learn.
You are doing this Forum a disservice. Here we have an actual 11/22/63 eyewitness that is actively participating in a discussion on this Forum, and what do you do? You attack her. This is why actively instrumental figures in the JFK Assassination such as Gary Mack bailed out around here. Discussion is a very good thing. Discussion involving individual(s) that were actually eyewitnesses to the assassination is invaluable. Put away the meat cleaver and if necessary employ a gag. You are not cute, and not helping solve this case.
With all due respect to the Sixth Floor Museum, to its Oral History Project, and to the people who participate, I think it's all almost entirely bogus. I don't care HOW impactful someone thinks the JFKA was, there is NO WAY memories 30, 40, 50, 60 years later can be trusted. I could regale the Sixth Floor Museum with plausible-sounding "memories" of the JFKA, but all I'm at least pretty sure I remember is that I was eating lunch in the outside lunch area at Alice Vail Junior High in Tucson. Who told us, who I was with, what I was wearing, what I was eating, how I and others reacted, what we were doing 5 minutes before and 5 minutes after - FORGET ABOUT IT. These characters who come out of the woodwork years after the fact are simply a nuisance. I don't care if what they say is LN-supportive or CT-supportive, it just confuses the issue and should be ignored.
You're actually right about something for a change, Fancy Pants Rants.
Memories are incredibly unreliable.
Take, for example, Toni Glover's mistakenly claiming that the limo was far down Elm Street when Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot rang out, Mary Woodward's mistakenly claiming that the first shot (which sounded like a backfire to her) occurred after JFK and Jackie had waved to her and her three colleagues (starting around Z-175), and Karen Westbrook's mistakenly saying Stella Mae Jacob, Glorua Jeanne Holt, and Sharon Simmons in the Zapruder film were "Uhh, Carol Reed?, Gloria Calvery, and me!!!" to smilin' 'n noddin' Stephen Fagin at The Sixth Floor Museum.
LOL!
You guys want to rely on the "images" when they conflict with the "memory" of an eyewitness? So, explain: (1) WILLIS 5 showing only 2 Guys standing at the bottom of The Steps, and (2) The NIX FILM showing a White Shirt Man running Up-The-Steps. Both of these unexplained images being in the very same area.
Hi folks. Long time. I just presented an academic paper about witness testimony. I'm going to paste it in here.
I Said What?
There are (at least) five ways witnesses’ stories can change unintentionally.
1. We want to have an answer for you. And we want to have an answer that will support your premise. It isn’t easy to say, “I don’t know.” We feel like we failed you, and you’ll hear, “I’m so sorry.” It’s possible to feel so much pressure you “think” of something new.
2. When you tell the same story 1,000 times, it can/will ‘organically’ change one word at a time. The 25th time I tell something I might add an adjective. The 50th time that adjective has become three words.
From my interviews:
“I ran over to Baker’s police motorcycle to see if I could hear any information.”
“I ran over to Baker’s two wheeled police motorcycle to see if I could hear any information.”
“I ran over to Baker’s two wheeled police motorcycle that was parked next to some three wheelers, to see if I could hear anything.”
This is all still true, but I’m adding words and that’s where a new, often false, detail crops up.
3. We live in a world where logic reigns supreme, but logic can overtake and change “memory.”
The first time I ever saw a picture of myself on that pedestal, I fell to my knees and cried. I had told the historians that I thought I had on the blue jacket but didn’t know what else. I also said I stayed home from school to go to the “parade.”
Gary Mack asked if I had on a black skirt. I saw the picture and it looked like a skirt.
Big Problem! Logic took over. Well, if I had on a skirt, I must have gone to school. That’s the only way I’d have one on in Dealey Plaza.
Then one of you eagle-eyed researchers figured out it was culottes. Shorts with a skirt. I could not have worn those to school. I must have stayed home like I thought I did.
4. There are 40,000 books and dozens of movies about the Kennedy and the assassination. It would be impossible for us to be sentient beings in the world and not hear about various versions of what happened. Sticking to our original memory takes effort. We do the best we can. We really do.
5. It was a very, very long time ago. I can’t remember what I had for dinner last week.
Try 62 years.
In my very first interview (forgive my extreme obesity at the time) I said I was too far away to see red blood. I saw grey material blast out of his head, but it sparkled. Later, having spoken with the physicists at my University, I learned it would be impossible to see 'sparkle' from that distance. In my next interview I said, "I was too far away to see blood. It didn't sparkle.
I received more than one email saying, "If your testimony changes over time, how can we trust anything you say?"
Welcome to my world.
I have completed my book and Pegasus Books is publishing it. "The Girl in Blue."
The first edition is in pre-order. Physical release in April.
If you are looking for new info on the assassination, you will be disappointed. The book is not about the assassination. It is about an emotionally disturbed little girl who goes to Dealey Plaza, and what the assassination does to her. I had to choose which theory of the assassination to use, and I chose Oswald as the single shooter.
That does not mean I know who killed Kennedy. I don't. The Oswald story was the easiest to research. The book is CREATIVE non-fiction. It is not a historical document. Hopefully, there are places that will make you will laugh and other places that might make you cry. Regardless of your theory, I think you'll enjoy it.
And FYI, no, I didn't see sparkles:))
Toni
I send this on this forum because people are genuinely trying to investigate details, images, testimony.
To me, the most interesting part of your 11/22/63 story is your Not recalling Amos Euins being crouched down behind that pedestal that you and your Mom were standing atop. And your also detailing that your Mom and yourself actually moved down along that cement cap that surrounds the water pool, in order to get down on the ground. Euins claimed on, "The Lost Bullet" National Geographic Special, that after he witnessed shots being fired from the TSBD 6th Floor Window, he immediately crouched down behind that same pedestal that you and your Mom were standing on top of. Euins Not being down behind that pedestal, also taints his detailed description of seeing shots being fired from the TSBD 6th floor window.
You obviously have Never watched "The Lost Bullet" (2011). In that National Geographic sponsored presentation, an adult Amos Euins stand directly next to the pedestal that Toni Glover and her Mom stood atop. Euins demonstrates how he hid behind that same pedestal immediately after witnessing shots being fired from the TSBD sniper's nest. This is NOT the same pedestal, behind Croft, or even close to the same area that you are referring to. That kid sitting on the other end of the wall, behind Croft, is Not Amos Euins.
Euins was sitting on the same curved concrete wall that Howard Brennan was sitting on.
That's him directly above Robert Croft in Z-170. His head is visible above the tree/bush.(https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z170.jpg)
He can also be seen at the 00:37 mark in the Mark Bell film, sitting on the pillar at the left end of the wall.
You obviously have Never watched "The Lost Bullet" (2011). In that National Geographic sponsored presentation, an adult Amos Euins stand directly next to the pedestal that Toni Glover and her Mom stood atop. Euins demonstrates how he hid behind that same pedestal immediately after witnessing shots being fired from the TSBD sniper's nest. This is NOT the same pedestal, behind Croft, or even close to the same area that you are referring to. That kid sitting on the other end of the wall, behind Croft, is Not Amos Euins.