The bus transfer

[Mitch Todd]

Margie Higgins was watching television at her house in Oak Cliff. She heard the TV announcer say it was 1:06. She checked her clock and it said 1:06. She said "at that point I heard shots." She told Barry Ernest she saw a man running away. "He definitely was not the man they showed on television." The Warren Commission evidently thought Mrs. Higgins testimony would be of no value as they did not call her. She did not help with the desired story.

The TV stations and networks kept video of that day's broadcasts. Guess what doesn't appear in any of them at 1:06.

[John Mytton]

The TV stations and networks kept video of that day's broadcasts. Guess what doesn't appear in any of them at 1:06.

 


Dale K Myers Without Malice


Barry Ernest girl on the stairs

On the WFAATV coverage @34:00 in this video(which for some reason age restricted) there is a time check "it's 3 minutes after 1 o'clock". It's also interesting that both newsmen insisted that they heard three shots and they don't seem to say that any shots were especially close together. These men were trained journalists and were acutely aware of insignificant details.

Btw if you read the original piece written by Ernest it's obvious that Higgins thought Ernest was a nut and just wanted him to go away.

JohnM

[Mitch Todd]

Actually I was emulating you. I did not know you were nine but congratulations?

So your best response is to dig deeper into childhood with a version of "I know you are, but what an I?"

Thanks for confirming that my faith in you has not been misplaced. Stay classy!

[Mitch Todd]

Funny how you know when somebody is telling the truth and when they aren't (HINT: If what they say doesn't match your fantasy narrative, they must be lying!)

Funny how the only good witnesses are the ones who scream "Oswald did it"

There are three witnesses involved in Oswald's entry into the Texas Theatre: Julia Postal, Johnny Calvin Brewer, and Butch Burroughs. Burroughs original testimony is consistent with the statements of Postal and Brewer; however, Burrough's latter ramblings contradict theirs. That makes his later statements the odd man out, and thus the version that should be discarded.

[Mitch Todd]

Stay ignorant... and gullible!

I'm not the one whose stopped discussing the realities of the case. That's you. Then again, your 'facts' been shown to be phantoms that have evaporated under the cold light of day.

[Mitch Todd]

You have nothing to offer and never did.
You can't make the facts go away by attacking me no matter how you try.
I have brought up plenty of "realities of the case" and "facts" in numerous threads but you ignored them so therefore you don't recall any of them.
You seem to be the one who has been sidetracked lately.

You've "brought up" a few factoids that demonstrate your shallow understanding of the issues involved. Where I've chosen to correct your understanding with a more complete picture of the evidence, you've been able to put up no resistance. At best, you try to bring up some non-sequitur or change the subject. Other than that, once the mystery of your shibboleths are stripped away to reveal the cornpone carnie behind the curtain, you have nothing left.

[Martin Weidmann]

There are three witnesses involved in Oswald's entry into the Texas Theatre: Julia Postal, Johnny Calvin Brewer, and Butch Burroughs. Burroughs original testimony is consistent with the statements of Postal and Brewer; however, Burrough's latter ramblings contradict theirs. That makes his later statements the odd man out, and thus the version that should be discarded.

That makes his later statements the odd man out, and thus the version that should be discarded.

So, the majority is always right? Is that what you are saying?

[Mitch Todd]

That makes his later statements the odd man out, and thus the version that should be discarded.

So, the majority is always right? Is that what you are saying?

I'll put it to you the way I put it to ....:

You have a guy who gives out one story soon after the fact. 2-3 decades later, he starts telling a very different, more involved (and jucier) story about the same event. You know that the other witnesses to the same event told a story that was consistent with the guy's first story, but contradicts his later one. The question to you is, which of the guy's two stories do you choose as most likely to be correct?