The Girls From 203

[Michael Walton]

What is the point of this thread? If it's about the women and an earlier shot, then it never EVER happened. The film clearly shows Kennedy looking quickly over to the right and waving. That's all it is. One of the women did yell, "Over here..." and that's what he did. The first shot didn't happen until Kennedy appears right after you see him again from the sign - a quick shot to the throat and then another in his back, which pushed him forward. Again you can see all of this in the film. Believe the film because it is the single biggest documentary proof of what happened that day.

No matter how many times Warren apologists throw up the BS, the medial evidence, too, backs this up - no exit on the back shot; no exit of the throat shot, and there's a photo taken of the reenactment in '64 that backs this up as well, because only they could see the autopsy photos then and they put stickers on the stand-in.

It took a helluva lot of BS by the WC and later converts to keep the BS alive.

[Dan O'meara]

Yes it is. And it is nothing like your smear tactic characterizations of it. I did nothing “deceitful”. I “misrepresented” nothing. I made no “strawman argument”. I did nothing “underhanded”.

Instead of just making a counterargument in a civil manner, you have to go straight to the angry rhetoric, which is a sure sign that your argument isn’t very solid.

I didn’t claim to know it for a fact. You’re the one here making a s*load of assumptions and declaring it to be “firmly established”.

Where did you get this idea? Another assumption? I’ve found and seen yearbook photos of all three. And whether you like it or not, faces are easier to identify than the backs of people’s bodies.

I’m not “whining”. I’m disputing that your assumptions are necessarily valid.

“Happy” is an odd way to characterize it. Something is either a fact or it isn’t. Happiness has nothing to do with it.

Well that was a lovely rant. And dishonest. Your whole approach was to look at the sea of the backs of bodies and look for three people standing side-by-side with your “general characteristics” from a black and white photo. Of course you’re assuming that the three are standing side-by-side in Zapruder. As you are trying to do with the Westbrook four.

No. Speaking of strawmen…

The handwaving is that “dark coat” and “bushy hair” is enough to uniquely identify somebody and call it “firmly established”.

And yet we’re supposed to go with “Dan thinks her coat is similarly dark”.

No, she pointed herself out. And mentioned that she wishes she still had the scarf. She would know what her scarf looked like.

This is just the usual “my guess is automatically correct unless you prove me wrong” argument.

An assumption that there is no evidentiary basis for. Like that the three were standing side-by-side at the time of the motorcade.

Says you. But then you have a very high opinion of your own assumptions.

I made no “strawman argument”.

You forget, this forum is a written record.
You posted a classic Strawman in your last post.
Now you have the nerve to tell this barefaced lie.
You really are unbelievable.

An assumption that there is no evidentiary basis for. Like that the three were standing side-by-side at the time of the motorcade.

There is no evidentiary basis supporting the assumption that Simmons, Holt and Jacob were stood side-by-side at the time of the motorcade??
Simmons states that she was standing on the sidewalk and that she was with Holt and Jacob at the time of the assassination.
This is evidence supporting the assumption they were stood together at the time of the assassination.
Not even you can deny this.

And let's throw a little common sense into the mix.
The crowds were thinning out on Elm Street. It's not like they were three or four deep. The Bronson pic below shows the gaps present between the small groups of people on the North side of Elm Street:



The three women leave the TSBD together, walk down Elm Street and take up a position where there are hardly any people. They stand together, side-by-side, chatting away like normal people do.
There is absolutely no reason to assume they were NOT stood side-by-side at the time of the assassination.
And it is hardly coincidence that when they are identified in the Z-film they are, indeed, stood side-by-side.

Once again, your baseless accusations are shown up for the nonsensical tripe they are.

Your whole approach was to look at the sea of the backs of bodies and look for three people standing side-by-side with your “general characteristics” from a black and white photo.

This a deceitful lie you just repeat over and over again.
My whole approach involves an analysis of numerous witness statements, numerous films taken in Dealey Plaza around the time of the assassination and then an analysis of the Darnell pic.

Your desperation is shown in the phrase "the sea of the backs of bodies", as if there are thousands of people from which an identification has to be made.
The truth is this - finding a group of three women in a group of sixteen women.
A group of three women in a group of sixteen women? How mountainous of a task can that be?

Below is the picture of the sixteen women on Elm Street:



We are looking for these three women in this group of sixteen:




You can do it John.
Where are this group of three women in the group of sixteen?
Just have a guess 

[Dan O'meara]

What is the point of this thread? If it's about the women and an earlier shot, then it never EVER happened. The film clearly shows Kennedy looking quickly over to the right and waving. That's all it is. One of the women did yell, "Over here..." and that's what he did. The first shot didn't happen until Kennedy appears right after you see him again from the sign - a quick shot to the throat and then another in his back, which pushed him forward. Again you can see all of this in the film. Believe the film because it is the single biggest documentary proof of what happened that day.

No matter how many times Warren apologists throw up the BS, the medial evidence, too, backs this up - no exit on the back shot; no exit of the throat shot, and there's a photo taken of the reenactment in '64 that backs this up as well, because only they could see the autopsy photos then and they put stickers on the stand-in.

It took a helluva lot of BS by the WC and later converts to keep the BS alive.

First and foremost, the point of this thread is to establish the identification of the witnesses closest to the assassination.
To me, this seems like a fundamental necessity. It doesn't tell us who took the shots but it does seem like something that should be common knowledge when investigating this case [IMO]
I started "The First Shot" thread to establish when the first shot occurred. I started it because there were so many different theories regarding when the first shot took place. It seemed to me that such a fundamental piece of information should be common knowledge. I have gathered an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the theory that the first shot occurred around z222/z223 and was the throat shot that caused JFK's arms to fly up in the extreme, elbows hyper-extended position we see in the Z-film.
One piece of this evidence is the statements of the witnesses stood along Elm Street. Some witness say the limo had just passed their position when the first shot was fired. Some say the limo was yet to reach their position when the first shot was fired. Some say the limo was in front of them when the first shot was fired. By establishing the location of the various witnesses we can "triangulate" these statements to pinpoint the exact position of the limo at the time of the first shot.

As I say, it doesn't tell us who took the shots, but it seems to me that these things are fundamental information that should be common knowledge and should form the basis of a general consensus between researchers.

[John Iacoletti]

You forget, this forum is a written record.
You posted a classic Strawman in your last post.
Now you have the nerve to tell this barefaced lie.
You really are unbelievable.

I made no strawman argument. You dishonestly accused me of making one. An accusation isn’t a fact.

There is no evidentiary basis supporting the assumption that Simmons, Holt and Jacob were stood side-by-side at the time of the motorcade??
Simmons states that she was standing on the sidewalk and that she was with Holt and Jacob at the time of the assassination.
This is evidence supporting the assumption they were stood together at the time of the assassination.
Not even you can deny this.

No, sorry. “Was with” is not the same thing as “standing next to”. Not even you can deny this.

And let's throw a little common sense into the mix.

And that’s where you leave the realm of evidence and dive head-first into the speculation pool.

Where are this group of three women in the group of sixteen?
Just have a guess 

Why? The methodology of guessing when you don’t have enough information is the entire problem with your approach.

[John Mytton]

There's a good chance that they are the same women.

A while back Michael T Griffith said the Zapruder film was fake because the crowd lining Elm are card board cut-outs yada yada yada, so I made a stabilized version showing various movements, neck turning etc but I can't find it, anyway here's a short gif showing the same scene.



EDIT here's some more from the post mentioned above. The first stabilization is from that Antdavision bloke.





JohnM