JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Toni Glover on June 03, 2025, 02:47:48 PM
-
New interview at Sixth Floor Museum, last November.
-
New interview at Sixth Floor Museum, last November.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Yes, because we need a third interview to assess how the "memories" have improved over the decades. ::) Jesus.
While we're at it, let's hear everyone else's "memories" of their birthday, Christmas, new puppy, first sexual encounter or anything else when they were ELEVEN YEARS OLD.
I actually have one. Old Mrs. Morrissey, my fifth-grade teacher at Lineweaver Elementary, was an English woman. We were at recess, and I had to come back into the building for something. Mrs. Morrissey was standing at the window, watching the kids at play, and didn't hear me. "Look at the little monsters," she said to herself. "They should all be shot." Yes, that has stuck with me - but pretty much nothing else from my event-filled 11th year. After that, I always kind of liked Mrs. Morrissey.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
OK, an 11-year-old kid at the time does not recall seeing Euins decades later. How on earth is this significant? Despite the lovely and talented Toni Glover feeling sure she would have noticed and recalled a young Black guy in a hat decades later, the lovely and talented Lance says BS:. I can definitely recall being in the Alice Vail lunch area when the JFKA was announced, but I couldn't tell you today if King Kong and Godzilla were standing beside me. This is zero evidence that Euins wasn't there or was lying about where he was - except in conspiracy world, where we lap this stuff up like mother's milk. Perhaps Dentist Don has pushed me over the edge, but I pretty much don't care what anyone said after the mid-1960s.
If anyone cares, the obsessive Dale Myers does a good job of discussing the changes in Euins' story here: https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2012/01/.
And here's a pretty good collection of all that Euins and Harkness said: https://tangodown63.com/amos-euins-statements/.
-
This is what you run into with Cold Cases. Old People with Old Memories. It's the peripheral stuff laying dormant within a vivid memory that can provide a "dot" connecting several other "dots". Officer Luke Mooney discovered the sniper's nest, and was called to give WC Testimony pertaining to his sniper's nest discovery. The peripheral "DOTS" within his WC testimony/memory were that he remembered that the Huge Gates that open into the Elm St Ext were "Wide Open". And, on the other side of those Wide Open Huge Gates was a dock with a Door that opened directly into the TSBD 1st Floor. And, standing next to that same Door on the TSBD 1st Floor was the Stairwell. Yeah, THAT Stairwell. Why would 2 Huge Gates that by my estimation were each roughly 8' by 12' need to be "Wide Open"? "Wide Open" after the Assassination (per Mooney), "Wide Open during the assassination, (Couch Film), and "Wide Open" before the assassination, (Towner Film)? Why would 1 Man that already worked inside the TSBD and had access to the TSBD, need those 2 Huge Gates "Wide Open" before, during, and after the assassination? Oswald/One Man wouldn't. These "dots" all lead to a TSBD covert entrance and exit route used by More than 1 Man. These peripheral Memory "dots" have ALL been there for years. 61+ years.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
Storing,
Do you think the footage showing Euins with the police right after the assassination was faked?
-
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.
Yes, some of them apparently have some pretty obvious agendas other than telling the truth. However, some of the witnesses didn’t pay much attention (if any) to the controversy and subsequent investigations and plethora of books, movies, etc. over the years surrounding the assassination. I don’t believe Toni Glover has an agenda other than wanting to tell her story about her experience. She says she has been writing her book for about ten years now and doing research to help with relating it to some of the other aspects. I am looking forward to reading it.
-
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)
Unfortunately, that other pedestal is on the other side of the horseshoe-shaped reflecting pool.
-
Unfortunately, that other pedestal is on the other side of the horseshoe-shaped reflecting pool.
And your point is?
-
Storing,
Do you think the footage showing Euins with the police right after the assassination was faked?
Euins being with the police does NOT put him at the base of the Glover Pedestal. He claims he was standing somewhere close to the curb on Houston St when he saw shots being fired from the sniper's nest. Glover Not seeing him seeking cover at the base of her pedestal damages his credibility.
-
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 now an adult, did a segment on "The Lost Bullet" where he demonstrated the pacing of the 3 shots fired. He judo chopped downward on the Glover Pedestal to emphasize that pacing. I think he was 15 on 11/22/63. Small but 15. Old enough to know and remember where he stood that day. He owns the Glover Pedestal.
-
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.
-
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.
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?
-
OK, I'll play cross-examining attorney for a moment:
This is Glover in a 2013 newspaper interview:
Glover said she did not have a good home life, describing her father as abusive. In her 11-year-old naiveté, she believed if she could get Kennedy to wave at her or even look at her, it would mean he "knew I existed and no one would hurt a kid that Kennedy knew."
"I went there with this magical thinking that just a wave and a smile would change my life forever, and he did indeed look up and smile and wave and it took my breath away. I was just floating on air. I was in the ether somewhere, and I had tunnel vision on the car."
https://www.patriotledger.com/story/news/2013/11/21/girl-in-blue-recalls/37935151007/
Sound like a great witness, ladies and gentlemen of the jury?
Pat Speer writes extensively about Glover and identifies her in all the relevant films. He places Euins on the pedestal to her left. At one point, a woman is beside Glover. Glover "can't remember what her mother wore" and doesn't think the woman was her mother, but "that sure looks like her coat." Otherwise, Glover doesn't know who was standing on the pedestal RIGHT NEXT to her.
Sound like a great witness, ladies and gentlemen of the jury?
-
And your point is?
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.
-
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?
If he was the guy Pat Speer identifies as him, then absolutely yes.
I am not really a Euins aficionado, Dentist Don and sock puppets being my areas of specialized expertise. I just find it comical that the fact that a 60-something woman doesn't remember seeing Euins when she was 11 would carry any weight with anyone.
FWIW, I pulled up a bunch of 11-22-63 crowd photos in Dealey Plaza and along the motorcade route. There were plenty of Black faces.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
I believe I already acknowledged the contradiction by stating that I think he might have had a faulty memory.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
From a 2012 exchange with Don Roberdeau, as reported by Pat Speer:
"Mom died in 1996. In fact it was her death that made me start thinking I needed to contact someone at the Museum. The thing she talked about most was the guy who wouldn't let us down. Geez it's hard for me to remember what she wore. I know I tried to get her up on the pedestal, but it was high. At one point when we were waiting, we both sat on the stone fence. But that was long before anything happened. I want to say that's mom next to me, but I can't be sure. Logically, it would have been odd for her to lose all dignity and climb up there. But it looks like her coat in Dorman. The woman could definitely be my mom. It looks like I hug her as the limo turns onto Elm. The top of the pedestal is slanted, very slightly from the edge to the center. That made it a little tricky not to fall off. I was probably trying to steady whoever is up there. That's the best I can do unless I find a family picture of her in that coat. I'll tell my sisters to go through some family albums."
Sound like a great witness, ladies and gentlemen of the jury?
At least where Pat Speer places Euins, he was not scrunched up beneath the Glover Pedestal of Freedom. You're confusing him with Dentist Don, who was scrunched up inside Glover's mother's coat.
-
A while back, I read an interview that the HSCA did with Euins. At that time he was asked about his claiming to have had a camera with him that day. He said he didn't know what happened to the camera amidst all the confusion on 11/22/63. So this "Whopper" stuff just might have legs.
-
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.
If Toni Glover and her mother were standing on the pedestal during the shooting (I believe that they were), and if, during the shooting, Amos Euins crouched behind said pedestal for "cover," would he have been able to see the "pipe" sticking out of the Sniper's Nest window by either looking through the gaps between their legs or by craning his neck around them?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Okay. It does not hurt my feelings when someone doesn't believe what I remember. Could I be wrong about Euins and his position regarding the pedestal? Absolutely. Could he have made every move he claims to? Absolutely.
Here is why I don't think he was there. Immediately after the shots, I turned to see how Mom and I could get down. I looked down and there was a man standing next to the pedestal who wouldn't move to let us down. So, I looked around the base of the pedestal to figure out how to get down. So, I actually stopped and looked down at the people around the pedestal and do not remember seeing a black man or kid around the base.We ended up having to use the stone "fence" attached to the pedestal to get down. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But that's what I remember. I specifically looked around the base, and I do not remember seeing Euins. He could have run over the second I looked away.
As for the time between the assassination and the time I came forward. We did not come forward immediately because we didn't think we knew or saw anything that would help police. I did not talk to historians for 30 years, but Mom and I talked about it with family and friends many, many times. So it wasn't a memory that sat decaying for 30 years and then, "Hey everybody, look at me. I was there." Look at me, don't look time, believe me, don't believe me. That is your decision. I try to answer questions the best I can. That's all I can do. The rest is up to each of you.
-
Toni - Thanks for participating on this Forum, and thanks for going over in detail You and your Mom's dismounting from the Glover Pedestal. Almost everybody here appreciates it. We have people that prefer to only "view", so the audience here is larger than those that choose to post. Thanks again, and I will be looking for your book release.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
In all fairness, you do have a nice smile.
-
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.
-
Whatever credentials/experiences someone might have or have not, most people are not accustomed to suddenly being the focus of the Spanish Inquisition.
-
Welcome, Toni. Do you still have the blue coat? If so, I'm sure the Sixth Floor Museum would be interested in it. ;)
-
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.
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…
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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 Happy Face avatar gets old fast. I'm going to find something a little more dignified. There, that's better.)
-
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.
If that's him on the pedestal in the Bell and Martin films, he certainly could have seen what he claims to have seen. Do you think it isn't? I wonder if he has ever been shown these? He's only a couple of years older than me, so hopefully he's no more doddering than I am. Anyone here close to Batch, TX? We will reimburse you for mileage and treat you to lunch at Taco Bell!
To cut Euins some slack, at the WC he wasn't even sure of the street names for Houston and Elm. He also seems to have been not very well "coached" since he stubbornly maintained he saw a bald spot, couldn't tell if the shooter was Black or white, and insisted his affidavit was wrong because he had described a white spot and not a white man. I'm willing to chalk him up to a bit confused but basically honest.
-
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.)
Thanks Lance and please thank your wife for me too.
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.
I agree with the idea that Euins was sitting on the other pedestal. I believe that position has a good view of the sniper in the sixth floor window (similar to Brennan’s view, only a few degrees different). I could understand Euins getting confused under all the extreme circumstances. I suggest that you inflict your wrath directly upon those who actually do “insist on magnifying minor discrepancies into something dark and sinister.”
My guess is that the mystery guy at the base of the pedestal was simply temporarily frozen in shock and probably fear.
-
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 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.
Well, the definition of the GIFs at Pat Speer's site seems quite good. Yes, that pedestal definitely is more along Elm. Unless we just think he was totally fabricating, which seems highly unlikely, he has to be SOMEWHERE and the other pedestal seems the best bet since the kid looks quite a bit like him.
-
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.
-
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.
Storing,
They probably took his camera from him and destroyed the exposed film because they figured it would be easier to do that than to alter all of the images in it.
-
Ha! I wish. Robin Unger has other photos of me sledding in the jacket 6 weeks later. The only thing I gave the museum was the letter I wrote for Jackie that my mom never mailed... complete with eleven-year-old grammar and bad spelling.
-
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.
-
???
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Murrayscan2.jpg)
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)
-
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.
-
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.
Thumb1:
-
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)
Thanks for the clip Steve! Based on the appearance and how he is holding it, I would guess that Euins is holding his own hat in his left hand. I also see something in the right hand of the (officer?) next to Euins. It looks like Amos looks at it when he turns around. It is about the size of a transistor radio from that era. And there were reportedly a number of them being used that day.
-
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.
-
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.
Hear! Hear!
-
Toni,
I have two suggestions:
Read my article "Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view).
Watch the 2021 documentary JFK Revisited (https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Revisited-Through-Looking-Glass/dp/B0DBBLXVH9)
-
Watch the 2021 documentary JFK Revisited (https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Revisited-Through-Looking-Glass/dp/B0DBBLXVH9)
Vladimir Putin says it's a must!
-
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!
-
Hi Toni,
I watched your last conversation with Stephen Fagin on YouTube and enjoyed it. I noticed that Stephen discussed and showed your presence in the Bell, Hughes, and Bronson (part 2) films. There are two more scenes that you’ve possibly seen but I wanted you to see them just in case you haven't.
The first one is the Bronson film part 1 where the ambulance is present and attending the epileptic. Your blue jacket and black skirt appear for a few frames in that group of people. Also, someone (your mother?) sits on the “Glover Pedestal” as if to save your place. By the way, years ago I stood on the Zapruder pedestal and know exactly your sensations about moving around on the 4’ high beveled surface.
(https://i.imgur.com/nSfKYPv.jpeg)
The second scene is in the Zapruder film from frames around 198-210. Your blue jacketed arm at your side, (can’t tell which arm), is at top-center of the frames, just to the side of the concrete pylon. I put those frames into a roughly stabilized gif to help visualize it. Just another film for your resume :)
(https://i.imgur.com/dZKpC02.gif)
-
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 already passed by). Just my opinion.
-
For time stamping, that man in the suit stepping backward up onto the (S) Elm St curb area is Phil Willis. This puts the JFK Limo just about directly in front of those old ladies. The LBJ Convertible can be seen on the Zapruder Film being in the process of turning onto Elm St during this same time period. This sequence is roughly where there is a Splice/Z154 in the Zapruder Film.
-
From the youtube...
7:56 And I was the only one who could see his head explode from where we were standing.
[edit] Nope. Toni could not see the jfk headshot from her pozzy. But i will double check.
[edit] Ok i had a look at google maps street view. Toni could indeed see the jfk headshot, at Z313, vizible to the left (from her viewpoint) of the large high concrete pillar near the water feature.
[edited] I see that Toni said that she did not hear Oswald's first shot, this shot was when jfk was under the traffic signals, which would have been seen by Zapruder at about pseudo Z105 to Z110, when the limo was about 40 paces north-west from Toni.
[edited] The guy standing near Toni's perch after the shooting finished was of course Howard Brennan, who had run around to there after Oswald's first & second shot.
-
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.
Hi Bill, yes you could be correct. I don’t pretend to know anything with any certainty. But I will spell out a few items that I think tend to support my imagination’s view.
The VP vehicle’s passenger compartment was slightly further east than the sniper’s window at this time. Plus the VP vehicle was way (about 57’) lower in elevation than the sniper’s window. I have done a relatively crude demonstration in my 3D computer model that confirms the angle from the two older ladies’ positions to the sniper’s window is very similar to their arm angles. It seems to me that if they were waving at the VP vehicle’s occupants that they would have had their arms at a significantly lower angle.
The older lady that is furthest left (camera view) appears to me to point (not wave) towards the sniper’s window. Perhaps more importantly, she immediately lowers her arm and turns back towards the President. It seems to me that if she was actually waving at people in the VP vehicle, she probably would have kept her attention on them for a while longer.
The older lady that is furthest right (camera view) appears to me to be waving her hankerchief frantically with her left hand while she is backing up. Then she appears to me to throw her right hand up and point towards the sniper’s window.
I cannot help but believe that they were trying to get the SS agents to look up towards the sniper’s window (because they had already seen him aiming his rifle at the President). My imagination does sometimes tend to show me things that aren’t really there. But I am having trouble getting this imagined scenario out of my head.
-
You guys have the time stamping wrong. The JFK Limo is almost directly in front of those old ladies. This would mean the hanky is probably being waved at the JFK Limo. Phil Willis stepping back onto the curb area means he is about to snap Willis 5.
-
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!
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
-
It's not rocket science.
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
-
It's not rocket science.
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
Yes before Z180. Or/& before Z189.
And in 1963 there was a large bush next to the large pillar hence that bush might have blocked Toni's good sight of the limo at say Z170 or even Z160.
But Oswald's first shot (which ricocheted offa the overhead signal mast arm)(actually i reckon offa a guy rod holding the arm) was at pseudo Z105 (Holland) to Z110 (me myself).
Here we have jfk's view of Toni at pseudo Z105-Z110 (Oswald's first shot).
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@32.779412,-96.808293,108.17h,-7.21p,1.16z,SNgD1Neq80EhkxhzBUAD2g
JFK's view of Toni at approx Z189 when view is blocked by large pillar (& bushes praps).
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@32.779283,-96.808446,57.54h,-12.89p,1.16z,yeTnnTSrpc8DbLCP_vIEcg
View back to Toni from about Z323, ie just after headshot at Z313 marked by X.
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@32.778992,-96.808705,35.82h,-8.53p,2.16z,bbfZuJu2he5m6pilWp03vg
Satellite view.
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@32.779171,-96.808902,20z,2t
-
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
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.
-
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.
Ok yes that looks ok.
A problem is that Toni's view of jfk's head might be blocked/affected by the standing agents in/on Queen Mary (the follow up limo) plus the semi-standing SSA Hickey (who fired the fatal AR15 shot) plus the upturned vizors on QM.
Ok, i had a look at the platt. The only impediment to Toni's view of jfk at Z313 is the upturned vizors on QM.
-
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.
-
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.
My theories for Oswald's actions & for SSA Hickey's actions accord with photo evidence & (good) witnesses.
Visitors can search my stuff, to avoid krapp.
-
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.
-
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.
Specifically what is in question?
-
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.
-
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.
Okay, but I don’t see what that has to do with Toni’s line of sight down Elm Street.
-
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.
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."
-
Okay, but I don’t see what that has to do with Toni’s line of sight down Elm Street.
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.
-
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.
-
An Eyewitness "Remembering" what they saw, is much different than someone making a "Guess" or an "Educated GUESS". Put yourself in the jury box.
Especially when it's from someone who was eleven years old sixty-two years ago and it seems to support your tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theory!!!
-
I am interested in Euins due to his timeline. What he did or did Not see is Not of interest to me. The Martin Film showing Euins riding on the rear of Harkness 3 Wheel Motorcycle also shows the Huge Gates being ajar in the background. DPD Officer Luke Mooney CLOSED those "Wide Open" Huge Gates when he and 2 other Cops went through them and then entered the TSBD 1st Floor from that side of the building. Officer Mooney also documents/timestamps the Electricity going out inside the TSBD as he attempted to take the feight elevator up to the 6th Floor. A JFK Assassination Eyewitness can hold far more value than that which is obvious. The Timelines of eyewitnesses can be like dominoes.