Message to Pamela Brown
Glenn Viklund
That's when I first posted anything in this newgroup. Since then I have on
numerous occasions explained, in detail, my position in the JVB
discussion.
- I've explained what happened in Sweden, as far as JVBs asylum seeking
endeavours.
- I've provided relevant documentation, including names, phone numbers and
addresses to officials involved.
- I've explained my translations.
- I've explained my conclusions.
- I've explained my opinions.
- I've answered a huge number of questions from you and Marsh.
It is now obvious to me that you haven't read any of this. Or, you don't
understand what it is that I've said. Or there is something else about you
that prevents you from reading any of the above. I have no idea.
Two years after I provided the relevant documentation about the asylum
seeker issue, now you want it translated? A document that you have fought
and discredited for two years without you being aware of what it says?
Meanwile I've been accused by you and a couple of others, including JVB
herself to:
- be a spy, a government agent, and an insider,
- spread falsehoods, mistranslations, lies and drivel,
- and a mass of other stuff too,
Latest example is you yesterday:
"Of course, Glenn Viklung has something to learn from this situation as
well.
He demands that everyone use his incorrect word, while refusing to allow
appropriate ones. He also refuses to acknowledge that the word
asyl/asylum can have more than one definition. A jelly donut indeed!"
And yet I told you this, a few days ago:
"Well the re-definition of asylum is nothing worth paying attention to.
Pamela can use whatever description she likes. But there's only one that
is accurate, and that's the one JVB complied with. I have a feeling the
Swedish Government doesn't worry too much about Pamela Browns
interpretations. Frankly, neither do I."
That is - I demand nothing from you. I refuse nothing. I just don't take
you seriously, that's all. For the simple reason you don't deserve to be
taken seriously.
And all the while, from you there are never any answers. There are endless
repetitions of "processes", "strawmen" and lots more of equally
meaningless invectives.
I've had enough of you and your games.
I will not discuss JVB or anything else with you anymore. It's all there
already, no need to endlessly regurgitate this. To you this is all a game
where the primary objective seems to be to aviod discuss issues in a
serious way. And to discredit others with loads of completely
unsubstatiated crap. It is disrespectful and has nothing to do with
research related to the JFK assassination.
And that's fine with me. It's just that as far as I'm concerned there will
be no further participation in your juvenile behavior from now on. Finito.
Game over.
John McAdams
<glenn54...@dataphone.se> wrote:
Good call, Glenn.
Sometimes people on these forums think that whoever has the "last
word" has won.
In fact, everybody knows that Judyth lied about having asylum.
Pamela bought the lie and repeated it.
Now, instead of admitting that Judyth lied to her, she is twisting in
the wind.
But even making her twist in the wind longer has no marginal utility.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
<glenn54...@dataphone.se> wrote:
Amen. Well said, Glenn .... and ditto from me.
Last night while lookinf for something else, I came across your very
first postings, one in particular where you did a line by line
translation of a letter from a woman at the migration board in which
she confirmed avery single bit of info you had posted. In that post,
you had given all the ways to contact this person, the board, the
court..... including the case number, the dates filed, etc. You had
made it clear you had no dog in this hunt, that since Sweden was
raised in the discussion and you are Swedish .... and in Sweden, you
just saw it as something you could check out and contribute, etc.
And PAMLA REPLIED to that post.
So, she has had all the info any real researcher who really wanted to
check it out would dream of having handed to them all along ... we
know she saw it because she replied to it. That she has decided to do
nothing but belly up to the whine and geez bar about it all for the
last 2 years is telling .... but it is what she does, and ALL she
does.
I decided the same thing you just posted last night myself. I am not
interested in playing her silly run around in circles games either.
If she was actually interested in the info .... she wouldn't keep
asking for it over and over again .... she would have done something
with it the first dozen times it was posted for her.
The good thing is that most are on to her "processes" and don't really
pay any mind to what she says about anyone. It's like the little boy
who cried wolf too many times.
Thanks for all you have done in getting and sharing and translating
the documents, talking to officials at the board itself, etc. It made
these asylum claims all quite easy to assess. A very valuable
contribution in an arena where some try anything and everything to
keep the waters murky and churned up when there is a clear and
documented answer they just don't anyone to know.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Glenn Viklund
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:4d220486....@news.supernews.com...
Exactly. There is no serious intention to start with and that's why it's a
complete waste of time to respond to Pamela in the future. She's playing
silly word games and thinks she's won something.
It's ridiculous beyond beleif, what she's doing.
Glenn Viklund
"Barb Junkkarinen" <bar...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:f934i6pcgskgkned0...@4ax.com...
Yes, I remember those postings. Mostly because I was quite shocked for
being attacked by three people when providing this info. Today, of course,
I know better. The two who are still left here are doing this kind of
nonsense-quabbling for a hobby. No progress or intellectual challenge in
discussing with them. Pam in particular. This type of nonsense is
apparently her bread and butter.
Sad as it is, but still true.
ED to that post.
>
> So, she has had all the info any real researcher who really wanted to
> check it out would dream of having handed to them all along ... we
> know she saw it because she replied to it. That she has decided to do
> nothing but belly up to the whine and geez bar about it all for the
> last 2 years is telling .... but it is what she does, and ALL she
> does.
Oh, yes, her memory is extremely selective - she's displaying that every
day.
>
> I decided the same thing you just posted last night myself.
Good! Congratulations! (It's a relief already, mind you...:-)
I am not
> interested in playing her silly run around in circles games either.
> If she was actually interested in the info .... she wouldn't keep
> asking for it over and over again .... she would have done something
> with it the first dozen times it was posted for her.
>
> The good thing is that most are on to her "processes" and don't really
> pay any mind to what she says about anyone. It's like the little boy
> who cried wolf too many times.
"Her processes.":-))
> Thanks for all you have done in getting and sharing and translating
> the documents, talking to officials at the board itself, etc. It made
> these asylum claims all quite easy to assess. A very valuable
> contribution in an arena where some try anything and everything to
> keep the waters murky and churned up when there is a clear and
> documented answer they just don't anyone to know.
Thanks to you too Barb, you've been great in keeping things straight in
this, at times very muddy, discussion.
But I will not be gone. It's just Pamela who's out. Permanently out of my
doings here and on Edu. Far too much time has been wasted on her already.
That has ended as of today.
Cheers!
jfk...@gmail.com
link to his full translation of the document are being requested, not his
repeated opinions and false accusations. His response is once again
nebulous repetitive statements that are unhelppful. He seems not to have
read anything that has been written.
In addition, he appears to start with the premise that he is an expert and
everyone needs to just let him do their thinking for them as he would
never lie nor slant material to suit his own ends.
This should hardly be a difficult task, should it?
As long as they exist?
Anthony Marsh
Here in the US that is what we call a cop-out. You refuse to back up
your claims so you say your opponent is not worthy enough to challenge
your statements. Arguing without the need to argue.
> Sad as it is, but still true.
>
> ED to that post.
>
>>
>> So, she has had all the info any real researcher who really wanted to
>> check it out would dream of having handed to them all along ... we
>> know she saw it because she replied to it. That she has decided to do
>> nothing but belly up to the whine and geez bar about it all for the
>> last 2 years is telling .... but it is what she does, and ALL she
>> does.
>
> Oh, yes, her memory is extremely selective - she's displaying that every
> day.
>
I'd like to see someone test your memory of 1963.
>>
>> I decided the same thing you just posted last night myself.
>
> Good! Congratulations! (It's a relief already, mind you...:-)
>
> I am not
>> interested in playing her silly run around in circles games either.
>> If she was actually interested in the info .... she wouldn't keep
>> asking for it over and over again .... she would have done something
>> with it the first dozen times it was posted for her.
>>
>> The good thing is that most are on to her "processes" and don't really
>> pay any mind to what she says about anyone. It's like the little boy
>> who cried wolf too many times.
>
> "Her processes.":-))
>
>> Thanks for all you have done in getting and sharing and translating
>> the documents, talking to officials at the board itself, etc. It made
>> these asylum claims all quite easy to assess. A very valuable
>> contribution in an arena where some try anything and everything to
>> keep the waters murky and churned up when there is a clear and
>> documented answer they just don't anyone to know.
>
> Thanks to you too Barb, you've been great in keeping things straight in
> this, at times very muddy, discussion.
>
> But I will not be gone. It's just Pamela who's out. Permanently out of
> my doings here and on Edu. Far too much time has been wasted on her
> already. That has ended as of today.
>
That's the best way to win an argument. Just refuse to debate it.
> Cheers!
Anthony Marsh
No dog in this hunt? You don't see that he has an agenda? You can't spot
his bias? You see hundreds of disinterested Swedes logging on here to help
translate documents for us?
Anthony Marsh
That's why it's so easy for you to win because you have the last word
and erase any further messages.
Chuck Schuyler
wrote:
> It's now passed two years.
That's when I first posted anything in this newgroup. Since then I have on
numerous occasions explained, in detail, my position in the JVB
discussion.
<snip>
You are learning what many of us know about conspiracists and the JFK
assassination.
This isn't a search for truth. It's a hobby. Hobbies are terrific, and I
have a few, including my participation in the exchanges here. It relaxes
and entertains me, and I learn things from time to time.
There is research here, but it is along a very narrow band of little use
outside the insulated world of conspiracy buffs versus those who believe
Oswald was a nut who fired a rifle from a building at a man passing by in
a car, changing history by happenstance.
The entire JVB saga is a monumental farce within the JFK hobby. I once
believed Judyth was just trying to con people for money, but after I
learned more about her I realized she is ill. Judyth's entire story is
false. She worked briefly with LHO and managed to turn this into some sort
of fantasy James Bond love affair. At this point, I believe she believes
what she writes.
Pam is another matter. Pam should know better, but Pam appears infected
with the 1960's generation concept that truth is pliable. It's relative.
It's in the eye of the beholder. The sort of relativism that says USA
isn't a good nation if you were a Sioux Indian in 1870. Or, Japan was
forced to attack Pearl Harbor because of our refusal to sell oil to them.
Or, The USA had 9/11 coming because of its policies in the middle east,
etc. When you combine Pam's unshakeable belief that JFK was murdered by a
cast of thousands, along with an interesting angle--Judyth Vary Baker--you
get a wedding between two people unconstitutionally capable of recognizing
simple, objective truth, hence your research--real research--fails to
convert Pam. Pam is a true believer.
There really is no other way to understand those who believe JVB other
than to say they are true believers in JVB. There is always something that
can be explained away. It's that simple.
ss679x
[...]
> Pam is another matter. Pam should know better, but Pam appears infected
> with the 1960's generation concept that truth is pliable. It's relative.
> It's in the eye of the beholder.
What a wild claim. Based on what, exactly? Using purloined documents,
sandbagging witnesses, holding videos of witnesses hostage, pragmatic acts
such as that? Those are true acts of pragmatism. Is truth 'pliable' in
those cases? Should those people know better?
>The sort of relativism that says USA
> isn't a good nation if you were a Sioux Indian in 1870. Or, Japan was
> forced to attack Pearl Harbor because of our refusal to sell oil to them.
> Or, The USA had 9/11 coming because of its policies in the middle east,
> etc. When you combine Pam's unshakeable belief that JFK was murdered by a
> cast of thousands, along with an interesting angle--Judyth Vary Baker--you
> get a wedding between two people unconstitutionally capable of recognizing
> simple, objective truth, hence your research--real research--fails to
> convert Pam. Pam is a true believer.
False. What truth seeker of any merit would allow a lie to go
unchallenged? What researcher of any integrity would say nothing when a
witness who comes forth with documentation is libeled? Chuck seems not to
have yet grasped a simple distinction based on doing the right thing.
>
> There really is no other way to understand those who believe JVB other
> than to say they are true believers in JVB. There is always something that
> can be explained away. It's that simple.
It is a false process that causes anyone to 'believe' or 'disbelieve'
witnesses. This is the process started by the WC. It is also false to
claim that someone 'believes' or 'disbelieves' anyone when they have said
that is not their process. Certainly Chuck would not want to push a false
statement, would he?
ss679x
> On 1/3/2011 1:18 PM, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 Jan 2011 12:15:47 -0500, "Glenn Viklund"
Yes, it seems Glenn has had the field all to himself, with McAdams and
Barb cheering him on while he says virtually anything he wants to about
Judyth and her involvement in the asylum process in Sweden. And of course
anyone who points that out is also subject to attack. WC defenders can be
so much fun.
ss679x
> On 1/3/2011 3:09 PM, Glenn Viklund wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:f934i6pcgskgkned0...@4ax.com...
> >> On 3 Jan 2011 12:15:47 -0500, "Glenn Viklund"
Glenn has turned-tail and run when asked to back up his false claims. He
has offered nothing at all, and his buddies McAdams and Barb demand that
we do their homework for them. Not terribly impressive.
When one's main argument relies on a narrow legal definition of one word
and an incorrect usage of another, the argument falls apart. So has it
been with Glenn. McAdams and Barb were taken in by the superficial
glitter.
Chuck Schuyler
You're babbling. You make no sense. You're highlighting what I've said is
your problem--you feel truth is relative. 2 + 2 = 4 is only a number of
possible outcomes if we listen to every side and process the answer
through the prism of the person mulling over the problem.
You're not a seeker of truth. You're the promoter of a fantasy. Judyth's
entire story is an invention in her mind. She wasn't on anybody's
assassination radar until she came forward and inserted herself into the
JFK saga--decades later.
If you are not deeply distrustful of a story that has US agent/hero Lee
Oswald and bioweapons expert Judyth Baker as the unlikely protagonists in
a tale to kill Castro while tangled together in an illicit love affair who
get mixed up in the JFK "plot" then there is no help for you.
So many people--CT and LN--have come forward with specific information
that refutes her tale(s) that one is left with the only conclusion
possible:
1.) Judyth has some form of mental illness or disorder, or she is a liar.
I personally feel Judyth believes the stories she weaves and isn't a liar
by the classic definition.
2.) You are incapable of recognizing the above statement as the only
possible truth regarding JVB.
jfk...@gmail.com
[...]
> Sometimes people on these forums think that whoever has the "last
> word" has won.
>
> In fact, everybody knows that Judyth lied about having asylum.
McAdams refuses to specify just what lies he thinks Judyth spread.
>
> Pamela bought the lie and repeated it.
False. Why would a truth seeker make such a claim?
>
> Now, instead of admitting that Judyth lied to her, she is twisting in
> the wind.
>
Untrue. It is McAdams who is in fact 'twisting in the wind' after having
to have explained to him the fact that Judyth spends half her time in
Sweden to the present day, and was not booted out never to return as he
has been trying to push.
> But even making her twist in the wind longer has no marginal utility.
Translation: McAdams was taken in by the superficial glamour of the
unsupported statements of his Swedish expert, and wants others to take the
blame. LOL.
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jan 3, 11:18=A0am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>[...]
>> Sometimes people on these forums think that whoever has the "last
>> word" has won.
>>
>> In fact, everybody knows that Judyth lied about having asylum.
>
>McAdams refuses to specify just what lies he thinks Judyth spread.
>
There have been tons:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
But the lie you got suckered by was her claim to have received asylum.
>>
>> Pamela bought the lie and repeated it.
>
>False. Why would a truth seeker make such a claim?
>
Glenn has posted right here the post where you said Judyth had asylum.
Are you denying you said that?
Go ahead, answer.
>>
>> Now, instead of admitting that Judyth lied to her, she is twisting in
>> the wind.
>>
>
>Untrue. It is McAdams who is in fact 'twisting in the wind' after having
>to have explained to him the fact that Judyth spends half her time in
>Sweden to the present day, and was not booted out never to return as he
>has been trying to push.
>
I never said "never to return."
If you attribute that statement to me again, the post will be
rejected.
She was kicked out of the country.
The document that *she* supplied to Martin (who gave it to Tony) said
she was going to have to leave the country.
Are you denying that?
>> But even making her twist in the wind longer has no marginal utility.
>
>Translation: McAdams was taken in by the superficial glamour of the
>unsupported statements of his Swedish expert, and wants others to take the
>blame. LOL.
>
The document that *she* supplied to Martin (who gave it to Tony) said
she was going to have to leave the country.
Are you denying that?
But you aren't going to answer, are you?
You are going to bluff and bluster, whine and complain, and deny.
Answer the qeustion, Pamela!
jfk...@gmail.com
based on a very narry legal definition of a term, another on the use of an
incorrect term, not to mention his free 'translations' of the document he
gave to McAdams, even his buddies Barb and McAdams are starting to realize
that there is no substance to much of anything he has to say. Glenn is
quickly running for cover.
John McAdams
wrote:
The document that *she* supplied to Martin (who gave it to Tony) said
she was going to have to leave the country.
Are you denying that?
But you aren't going to answer, are you?
You are going to bluff and bluster, whine and complain, and deny.
Answer the qeustion, Pamela!
.John
Chuck Schuyler
>
> - Show quoted text -
bump
jfk...@gmail.com
following the debacle of having bought into Glenn's unsupported
theories.
John McAdams
wrote:
>Translation: Barb attempts to retreat with some shred of dignity
>following the debacle of having bought into Glenn's unsupported
>theories.
>
The document that *Judyth* supplied to Martin (who gave it to Tony)
jfk...@gmail.com
translations of Judyth's document, and admitting at having actually done
no full translation of it, while persisting in maintaining that only a
narrow legal definition of one term and a misuse of another suffice as
axioms to his pet theories, Glenn beats a hasty, if wordy, retreat.
To add to the ignominy, he has had to disclose to McAdams that he has
known all along that Judyth lives under his nose for half the year, after
having let McAdams pratter on about Judyth having been booted out of the
country never to return.
Guess it's time for a toast...with glug, of course.
John McAdams
wrote:
The document that *Judyth* supplied to Martin (who gave it to Tony)
Glenn Viklund
"Chuck Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:6def94d0-b366-4249...@g25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> It's now passed two years.
That's when I first posted anything in this newgroup. Since then I have on
numerous occasions explained, in detail, my position in the JVB
discussion.
<snip>
You are learning what many of us know about conspiracists and the JFK
assassination.
This isn't a search for truth. It's a hobby. Hobbies are terrific, and I
have a few, including my participation in the exchanges here. It relaxes
and entertains me, and I learn things from time to time.
**Yes, I agree. Hobbies can have very positive sides.
There is research here, but it is along a very narrow band of little use
outside the insulated world of conspiracy buffs versus those who believe
Oswald was a nut who fired a rifle from a building at a man passing by in
a car, changing history by happenstance.
**Well, I'm not suggesting anything sensational. What I do think is that
people who are obstructing an honest and serious discussion, are a waste
of time. But you know Chuck, one's got to give it some time before
reaching such a conclusion.
The entire JVB saga is a monumental farce within the JFK hobby.
** Absolutely, I fully agree.
I once believed Judyth was just trying to con people for money, but after
I learned more about her I realized she is ill. Judyth's entire story is
false.
**Yes, at least as far as her own alleged role in the farce it is. But her
story is a mixture of lies, fantasies and research to the point where it's
now hard to tell exactly which is which.
She worked briefly with LHO and managed to turn this into some sort of
fantasy James Bond love affair. At this point, I believe she believes what
she writes.
**She might, yes.
Pam is another matter. Pam should know better, but Pam appears infected
with the 1960's generation concept that truth is pliable. It's relative.
It's in the eye of the beholder. The sort of relativism that says USA
isn't a good nation if you were a Sioux Indian in 1870. Or, Japan was
forced to attack Pearl Harbor because of our refusal to sell oil to them.
Or, The USA had 9/11 coming because of its policies in the middle east,
etc. When you combine Pam's unshakeable belief that JFK was murdered by a
cast of thousands, along with an interesting angle--Judyth Vary Baker--you
get a wedding between two people unconstitutionally capable of recognizing
simple, objective truth, hence your research--real research--fails to
convert Pam. Pam is a true believer.
**Yes, a true believer. It's OK that she's not a researcher. But it's for
me not OK that she's contiously obstructing the discussion, never answers
questions and accuse others of loads of wrong doings.
That's where it ends, as far as I'm concerned. My respect for her is gone,
vanished.
There really is no other way to understand those who believe JVB other
than to say they are true believers in JVB.
**I agree, how anyone can fail to see that this is a deluded, poor woman
who is a notorious liar is a mystery to me.
There is always something that can be explained away. It's that simple.
**Hehe, yes very much so. JVB is never wrong. Others are always wrong. JVB
never lies, others always do. JVB is honest others are dishonest.
An it goes on and on and on and on....
Barb Junkkarinen
Welcome to the world of Pamela (and her sidekick as well)! See, John
... that's how it goes .... the same false attributions and
accusations over and over and over again .... no matter how many times
you correct her, even if you challenge her for a cite (which she never
provides). This is precisely what several of us have been living with
for a very long time .... sometimes the same charge being repeated
several times a day in mutiple threads .... and under brand new thread
titles that she starts incessantly. Thus a jumbled tangle of nonsense,
discussions impossible to follow ... and obstruction of any real
discussion taking place or moving forward. Do you think it just might
be intentional? It's become a popular ponder in some circles.
Enjoy! :-)
Anthony Marsh
And anyone who criticizes Glenn is censored and all messages erased.
That's the best way to win an argument. Forbid the other side from
arguing their case.
jfk...@gmail.com
> On 4 Jan 2011 15:48:17 -0500, "jfk2...@gmail.com" <jfk2...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Translation: Barb attempts to retreat with some shred of dignity
> >following the debacle of having bought into Glenn's unsupported
> >theories.
>
> The document that *Judyth* supplied to Martin (who gave it to Tony)
> said she was going to have to leave the country.
The document that you have posted says this. That has never been an
issue.
Judyth left. Judyth returned for three months at a time. Do you disagree
with that?
>
> Are you denying that?
Of course not.
Judyth left Sweden at the time of her final appeal being rejected. She
returned a few months later, and has been doing so ever since. Are you
able to acknowledge this? Barb has explained this to you as well.
>
> But you aren't going to answer, are you?
Why does a truth seeker have to have the same thing explained numerous
times?
>
> You are going to bluff and bluster, whine and complain, and deny.
You seem to be believing some crazy theory that has no basis in fact. Hope
you didn't get it from Glenn; he seems to like to be rather creative.
Chuck Schuyler
> And anyone who criticizes Glenn is censored and all messages erased.
> That's the best way to win an argument. Forbid the other side from
> arguing their case.
More touchy CTs. Now Agent 007 McAdams of the CIA is erasing arguments and
forbidding you to argue your case (as if you have a case to argue, but I
digress). I'm sure his CIA handlers are doing quite the Snoopy dance over
how the Warren Commission apologists on the payroll here have stifled the
truth about bioweapons expert JVB and American Hero Lee Oswald.
I don't know what's more bizarre; Judyth's story or the inability of her
toadies to let go of the charade.
Poor Tony. Poor Pam. So wronged. So maligned.
Let's continue to accuse innocent people and institutions of murder and be
so thin-skinned when we're shown to be flat-out wrong that we'll cry on a
discussion board.
My gosh...anything to keep the hobby afloat, I guess.
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 2:49 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 4 Jan 2011 15:48:17 -0500, "jfk2...@gmail.com" <jfk2...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Translation: Barb attempts to retreat with some shred of dignity
>> >following the debacle of having bought into Glenn's unsupported
>> >theories.
>>
>> The document that *Judyth* supplied to Martin (who gave it to Tony)
>> said she was going to have to leave the country.
>
>The document that you have posted says this. That has never been an
>issue.
>
Oh?
Then why have you been making it an issue?
>Judyth left. Judyth returned for three months at a time. Do you disagree
>with that?
Of course not.
But who cares?
She was denied asylum.
Had she gotten it, she could stay all the time. But she can't.
>
>>
>> Are you denying that?
>
>Of course not.
>
>Judyth left Sweden at the time of her final appeal being rejected.
Glad you admit that.
>She
>returned a few months later, and has been doing so ever since. Are you
>able to acknowledge this? Barb has explained this to you as well.
>
I've never said anything to the contrary.
She was denied asylum, tossed out of the country, and allowed to come
back on (apparently) a tourist visa.
>>
>> But you aren't going to answer, are you?
>
>Why does a truth seeker have to have the same thing explained numerous
>times?
>
You are the one who needs to answer that for your own self.
>>
>> You are going to bluff and bluster, whine and complain, and deny.
>
>You seem to be believing some crazy theory that has no basis in fact. Hope
>you didn't get it from Glenn; he seems to like to be rather creative.
And what "crazy theory" would that be?
You are the one who was fooled and bamboozled by Judyth.
Are you willing to acknowledge that?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 4, 7:52 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> And anyone who criticizes Glenn is censored and all messages erased.
>> That's the best way to win an argument. Forbid the other side from
>> arguing their case.
>
> More touchy CTs. Now Agent 007 McAdams of the CIA is erasing arguments and
> forbidding you to argue your case (as if you have a case to argue, but I
> digress). I'm sure his CIA handlers are doing quite the Snoopy dance over
> how the Warren Commission apologists on the payroll here have stifled the
> truth about bioweapons expert JVB and American Hero Lee Oswald.
>
Well, they certainly don't want to have people talking about their
poison research.
> I don't know what's more bizarre; Judyth's story or the inability of her
> toadies to let go of the charade.
>
> Poor Tony. Poor Pam. So wronged. So maligned.
>
> Let's continue to accuse innocent people and institutions of murder and be
> so thin-skinned when we're shown to be flat-out wrong that we'll cry on a
> discussion board.
>
CIA? Innocent? LOL.
Pamela Brown
Judyth. My posts have consistently maintained that I do not believe nor
disbelieve witneses. Any other claim is false.
On Jan 4, 2:46 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2011 15:40:53 -0500, "jfk2...@gmail.com" <jfk2...@gmail.com>
Pamela Brown
theories.
mike in sweden
As you can tell this is my first message on this site. I normally read the
threads on Spartacus and as it seems to be impossible to join there I have
been unable to post any messages. However I am well versed with the whole
JVB madness and read Glenn Viklung`s messages in the giant JVB thread last
year. I also speak swedish (but not a native) and and would like to say
that I have found nothing improper in his translations. However you can
message me with any second opinion queries if you like.
ss679x
Pamela Brown
own recent dictum a poster cannot make a claim of a false belief against
another poster. I have said for the last 7 years that I do not believe
nor disbelieve Judyth. Has McAdams not read any of those posts?
McAdams has tried to lump me into his mythical "team Judyth" anyhow. That
is false. What sort of 'team member' would say for the last 7 years that
they don't care if anyone is interested in what Judyth has to say or not
just don't libel her because she has documentation putting her in
proximity to LHO in NOLA in the summer of 1963?
McAdams seems to be having a bit of trouble differentiating between what
he or one of his buddies such as Glenn or Barb are saying I said and what
I have actually said.
On Jan 4, 11:04 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2011 23:08:47 -0500, "jfk2...@gmail.com" <jfk2...@gmail.com>
Pamela Brown
orient himself to what my position is. Let me repeat myself for the
umpteenth time: I don't care if you are interested in what Judyth has to
say or not. Don't try to embroil me in a discussion that includes either
'believing' or 'disbelieving' her, because I do neither. Actually, per
McAdams' recent dictum, a poster is not supposed to claim a false belief
against another poster. The axiom of your post stems from a false belief.
How about trying to stay on the same page for a change?
Pamela Brown
recent dictum. I do not believe nor disbelieve Judyth. Therefore he
cannot claim that I 'believe' Judyth. That is false.
On Jan 4, 2:53 pm, "Glenn Viklund" <glenn54.vikl...@dataphone.se>
wrote:
> "Chuck Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> skrev i meddelandetnews:6def94d0-b366-4249...@g25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Thanks, that's wonderful. How about just to prove your bona fides you
upload these translations you are talking about, right here, right now?