Post by John McAdamsPost by 19efppp"Amos Euins," whom I'll call "Amos Euins" just to keep this simple, was
observed by a witness hiding behind the concrete abutment by the "lagoon,"
as I'll call it because some deputy did, just like he said. I know that
Anthony Marsh hates witnesses and prefers to depend upon grainy film based
speculations to prove Amos to be a liar, for reasons I cannot fathom, but
Dale Myers might be impressed, as we know how much he LOVES witnesses. Did
he and Jack Tatum ever get married, I wonder? But yes, my friends and
Nutters, we have a witness who said it was true. "Amos Euins" was indeed
cowering right where he said was. Why do Tony and Dale want to make Amos
into a liar? Why is that so important to them? Hank, when you get a
minute, why don't you look into this? Perhaps your critical thinking
skills can be brought to bear on the question. Why do they hate "Amos?"
Somewhat bizarre post, since nobody has called him a lair.
A reporter claimed he said the shooter was a black man. If he did, it
would be a reasonable misperception, since there were black guys in
the windows below the sniper's nest, and when bullets start flying one
would not stand around carefully surveying the scene.
But then the reporter might be confused.
His first recorded statement has the shooter as a white man.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337547/m1/1/
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Marsh and Myers, and it's much easier to tell with Myers, do not call Amos
a liar for identifying the shooter as a black man, but for claiming that
he was standing near the east abutment of the concrete structure housing
the pool. Marsh just shoots off his mouth and refers to a film and claims
to have discovered Amos elsewhere because he is elsewhere in the film,
even though a "Gerda" made that discovery. But Myers has a web page
pretending to prove that Amos was not where he says he was. And it fails
miserably on it's own terms, showing Myers' desperation to make the claim.
Yes, probably it really is the claim that he saw a black man shooting that
is actually behind their attempts to make him out to be a liar, but they
don't seem to want to draw attention to the BLACK MAN SHOOTING claim. They
would rather leave that unsaid. Instead they imply, and that's all they
dare do, that he was not in a position to see the shooter at all. They
want to imply that he could not have seen the black man because Amos
really was not even there. But they don't have the guts to say so. They
don't have the guts to say this was about Amos seeing a black man
shooting. Instead, they make cowardly and false arguments that Amos was
not where he says he was. Marsh's argument falls short, because the film
was taken after the shooting, so Amos perhaps has simply run down Elm
Street by then. Myers fails with the...I forget the name of the
film...Doorman film because he says you can't identify Amos in it, which
is damn silly argument because it's difficult to identify anybody in it
and it does not cover all of the area, as Myers' own graphic shows. Myers
also shows some other photo which shows that nobody is where Amos said he
was. But that film, like Marsh's, was taken at a different time than Amos
claimed to be there, so that doesn't prove anything either. It's a very
sleazy attack on Amos's credibility that Myers does, and he's smart enough
to know it. So, in their desperate attempts to covertly discredit Amos's
sighting of the Black Man Shooting, Marsh & Myers overtly present
dishonest arguments about where Amos was watching the parade.
And of course, you can always fall back on the Mistaken Trope, as you do,
which is at least a reasonable argument simply because anybody can be
mistaken when you need them to be. But Marsh and Myers take it a step
further than you do; they indirectly and falsely impugn Amos's credibility
with silly arguments that don't prove anything other than that Amos had
two functioning legs.