OMG, per Amazon, the McAdams book is on its way;-0

[ss679x]

I gritted my teeth and prepurchased this, realizing I would have to
bit the bullet and read it sooner or later.

The question I will be asking is how someone who seems to be entirely
ungrounded in process and apparently oblivious for a need to reason
assassination issues through will manage to write anything of value
that tells others how to think..

Hmmm...

[timstter]

No one could ever work out YOUR process vis-a-vis Judyth Vary Baker.

Until we all realised you didn't really have one.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[John Blubaugh]

I am willing to bet you just made the first revue of the book.....

JB

[jas]

"...oblivious for a need to reason assassination issues...?"

What issues? You mean like rebutting the 16 Dealey snipers and 22
agencies-involved theory?

[jas]

On Sep 17, 7:07 pm, ss679x <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:

I just love it when CTs give us their opinions of a brand-new book
without reading it. Shows their unique, informed, and brilliant
"credibility."

[ss679x]

I would call it more curiosity. I would like to be mistaken.

[ss679x]

If that would include any issue at odds with the WCR, yes.

[ss679x]

Translation: it's not ok to ask questions or express curiousity, much
less irony. In this case, I would like to be mistaken.

I would hope that McAdams will not end up in a position of irony as
Fetzer has done at the opposite end of the spectrum -- having been a
prof of logic and resorting to every fallacy under the sun to push the
most far-out CT theories.

Guess we'll have to wait and see. For a day or two at least.

[ss679x]

On Sep 18, 3:27 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 12:07 pm, ss679x <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I gritted my teeth and prepurchased this, realizing I would have to
> > bit the bullet and read it sooner or later.
>
> > The question I will be asking is how someone who seems to be entirely
> > ungrounded in process and apparently oblivious for a need to reason
> > assassination issues through will manage to write anything of value
> > that tells others how to think..
>
> > Hmmm...
>
> No one could ever work out YOUR process vis-a-vis Judyth Vary Baker.
>
> Until we all realised you didn't really have one.

Au contraire; not only do I have one, but it works. You just don't
like it.

[Gerry Simone]

Once again a LNer will exaggerate a CT's view or COMBINE alternate
scenarios to make the CT position look ridiculous.

I hope Dr. McAdams doesn't do that in his book.

"jas" <lle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:78518771-b43a-48d5...@t29g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

[ss679x]

Puzzling book.

McAdams has criticized one dissenter for pushing seeing a figure in the
Moorman photo, then complimented him on debunking the t&t windshield hole
theory.

Is this evidence of objectivity or just a loose end?

[John McAdams]

On 19 Sep 2011 18:51:41 -0400, ss679x <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:

You must be talking about Tink Thompson.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

I have not yet given my opinions about either the O'Reilly book or the
McAdams book. All I have done was give my opinions about the authors. And
caution people to consider the source and their rightwing bias. If you
knew how to use the Internet to search you could see that I refused to
give an opinion about the Bugliosi book until I had bought it and read it
and then I tore it apart page by page.

I refused to give an opinion about Judyth's book because I did not want to
bother reading it. And yet I was the only person who could confirm some of
the things she said. I was the only person on this planet who was able to
find the letter she wrote to President Kennedy. Not you, not McAdams, not
Martin, not Barb.

[Anthony Marsh]

Boy, your a real tough guy, aren't you, to be able to knock down all
those straw men all by yourself. I liked your brilliant proof that the
aliens didn't shoot JFK from their UFO. Brilliant!

[Anthony Marsh]

No, I hope he's talking about me. BTW, I think he has accidentally
complimented me for proving that the Zapruder film is authentic.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/19/2011 6:50 PM, Gerry Simone wrote:
> Once again a LNer will exaggerate a CT's view or COMBINE alternate
> scenarios to make the CT position look ridiculous.
>

You have to feel sorry for them. That's all they know how to do.
They can't argue the facts.

[claviger]

ss679x,

Sounds like you got it all figured out. What is your theory?

[Barb Junkkarinen]

On 19 Sep 2011 22:34:36 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>I refused to give an opinion about Judyth's book because I did not want to
>bother reading it. And yet I was the only person who could confirm some of
>the things she said. I was the only person on this planet who was able to
>find the letter she wrote to President Kennedy. Not you, not McAdams, not
>Martin, not Barb.

Ahhh, it has been awhile, but it always comes back around on the
conveyor belt...LOL.

One mo time for old time's sake ...

QUOTE
This excellent post by William Yates details and documents the
sequence of events that resulted in Tony Marsh looking for Judyth's
letter to Kennedy at the Kennedy library. I have changed the title so
that this can be stored and found for easy reference ... and use ...
any time Marsh again tries to reinvent this particular wheel and makes
like none of it has ever been said before!

There is also an incredible keeper of a quotation from a post Pamela
wrote 2 years ago ... August 22, 2006. What happened to this Pamela?
It would be nice to have her back.

Good job, William!

Barb :-)

On 30 Aug 2008 13:56:37 -0400, William Yates
<william_...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Steve Thomas wrote:
>>> On Aug 29, 8:10 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Steve Thomas wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 28, 9:41 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Steve Thomas wrote:
>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 8:33 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Steve Thomas wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 26, 11:35 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Aug 2008 13:03:40 -0400, JLeyden...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 24, 3:37?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt was the executive producer of "60 Minutes." He was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> under the head
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of CBS News, as well as other CBS executives. Your claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that if Hewitt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought she was on the level, he would have done the story
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>> false-- Hewitt himself contradicted you in his CSPAN oral
>>>>>>>>>>>>> history
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interview. This isn't something I made up--but you know that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> already. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just inconvenient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep making this claim about a pro-Judyth statement by
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt on
>>>>>>>>>>>> CNN but I never saw and, quite frankly, I doubt your
>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation
>>>>>>>>>>>> after listening to your many and varied excuses for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cancun gaffe
>>>>>>>>>>>> and other Judyth miscues.. POST IT.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see it too, for what I saw was, as I posted the
>>>>>>>>>>> other day
>>>>>>>>>>> and I believe Martin ignored, was that in that interview,
>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt said
>>>>>>>>>>> he didn't know if her story was true but that she sure knew a lot
>>>>>>>>>>> about Oswald ... and did say that the door was slammed by
>>>>>>>>>>> Brian Duffy
>>>>>>>>>>> ...and related that Duffy said they really had no evidence,
>>>>>>>>>>> just her
>>>>>>>>>>> story.
>>>>>>>>>> Did they look for her letter to President Kennedy? Again, no
>>>>>>>>>> factchecking was done. Point proven.
>>>>>>>>> They should have run her story with that letter someone told
>>>>>>>>> you to
>>>>>>>>> find? Why? What kind of evidence is that?
>>>>>>>> I didn't say that. I said they didn't do the simplest factchecking.
>>>>>>> You think because they didnt(according to you, not sure how you
>>>>>>> came
>>>>>>> to that conclusion though) go get that letter someone told you to
>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>> that they did no fact checking?
>>>>>> Brian Duffy said they had no evidence. It was simple for me to find
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> letter. They didn't bother to do that.
>>>>> How do you know they didnt? I believe Martin has said he doesnt
>>>>> know
>>>>> what evidence/documentation they gathered on their own, so how do you
>>>>> know? Mayby they found the letter and discovered she lied about it.
>>>>> Hence
>>>>> no CIA loyalty oath, therefore no real evidence of her claims. How
>>>>> do you
>>>>> know they didnt?
>>>> Duffy said they had NO EVIDENCE.
>>>
>>>
>>> And he was right. That letter she lied about that SOMEONE gave you
>>> the idea to go find has nothing to do with JFK getting killed. She
>>> lied about that letter Tony, its about time you accept it.
>>>
>>
>> Lurkers, note how he keeps changing his tune and backpedaling. One day
>> he says that someone ORDERED me to find the letter. Another day he says
>> that some TOLD me to find the letter. Another day he says that someone
>> SUGGESTED that I find the letter. And now he says someone GAVE ME the
>> idea to go find the letter. He can't keep his story straight. I think
>> lurkers have learned by now that YOU do no research. That your only
>> purpose in being here is to attack conspiracy believers over anything.
>>
>
>I'm sure that if the lurkers here have learned anything, it's that YOU did
>NOT think of looking for that letter yourself. This is the long version.
>The first three items have reposted several times, but stick around to the
>end. It gets fun.
>
>This is me.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c8df28a6876f5b80?hl=en
>
>
>QUOTE
>
>If Judyth wrote Kennedy in 1961 the letter and presumably the response
>from Dungan should be at the Kennedy Library. Maybe someone who lives
>close to the Library could check. Martin doesn't seem to want to provide
>it.
>
>END QUOTE
>
>This is Barb, replying to me.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/eda4d38f38178571?hl=en
>
>QUOTE
>
>
>Good idea. There is someone who lives in Boston. Maybe he'll see to it.
>But, personally, I don't doubt that she wrote to JFK and got a response
>from someone in 1961 ... lots of kids write to the President. I think the
>whole 1960 science fair scenario with being whisked away to a soundproofed
>room at Eli Lilly, signing loyalty oaths and being directed to write to
>JFK (offering her services to her country or whatever it was) is
>preposterous beyond the pale. It's very creative. Lot's of fiction
>is....and in my opinion, this whole scenario is fiction. Barb :-)
>
>END QUOTE
>
>Now, here is Tony, the next day, replying to Barb. Note Tony's skepticism.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fedae261f3ca64f9?hl=en
>
>QUOTE
>
>I'll take a look, but I doubt the letters exist. Someone claimed that you
>had the Dungan letter, so that is why I asked you. I hope to go to the
>Kennedy Library later this week to pick up some more reinterment photos.
>As you may know the Kennedy Library intends to put most of its collection
>online, but it is a slow process.
>
>END QUOTE
>
>Here is Dave Reitzes, the same day as the above. The letter he is
>referring to is Dungan's reply.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/a2a76375fe4bf264?hl=en
>
>QUOTE
>
>Turns out I've had a copy of the letter in my database all along, from a
>packet of files Judyth distributed some years ago to "trusted
>researchers." The letter is dated May 20, 1961. I'll try to post a .jpg
>file, but here's the text:
>
>[I'm deleting the text of Dungan's reply.]
>
>END QUOTE
>
>At this point, it was obvious that Judyth had written a letter to Kennedy
>in 1961, not 1960 when she was at the science fair in Indianapolis. So,
>Tony's trip to the Kennedy Library was nice, but not really necessary
>anymore.
>
>Now, here is where it gets fun. Tony, the day after Dave posted the text
>of Dungan's letter.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/b035e5f34ca783d0?hl=en
>
>QUOTE
>
>If there is a reply letter I have yet to see it. But arguendo if it exists
>that would indicate that there must have been an original letter to reply
>to. So that original letter should be in the Kennedy Library. I just got
>permission to reproduce the reinterment photos which no one else has seen
>before, so I will also look for the original letter. Curious though that
>the reply does not have her address. That is very unusual for official
>correspondence. I do know that they have a special collection of Dear Mr.
>President letters from the public.
>
>END QUOTE
>
>You'll note that Tony is making the same point I did, but without giving
>credit where credit was, and still is, due.
>
>And then Pamela offered this, and she actually sounds reasonable!
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/2a6d83946da0cd09?hl=en
>
>QUOTE
>
>I'm getting the impression that those who support Judyth have been caught
>up in the frenzy of her statements coupled with some uncanny coincidences
>(mice, for one) plus her stated documentation to LHO in NO in the summer
>of '63. Once one becomes acquainted with Judyth it is very difficult to
>remain objective. I sincerely doubt that anyone close to her has played
>Devil's Advocate and confronted the unanswered questions. It becomes a
>kind of Judytheism, involving a leap of faith, instead of reason and cold
>logic.
>
>So, another reasonable question for Martin is to ask why he continues to
>support Judyth's statements and try to insist that we do (or should), when
>so much of the research community is not swept away by7 her statements or
>her credentials. Why not instead address the issues that are creating the
>disconnect, such as the seeming lack of documentation connecting Judyth to
>Sherman or Ochsner, much less that of the existence of a secret
>clandestine program with a rogue lab? Pamela
>
>END QUOTE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Judyth could not even find the letter. No
>>>> one else could. The imaginary CIA loyalty oath has nothing to do with
>>>> the
>>>> fact that she really did write the letter to President Kennedy. Try to
>>>> focus.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Barb :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>> JGL
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:c87737c4-3926-4a98...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 23, 12:37?pm, "Martin Shackelford"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duffy was consulting for CBS on the Judyth matter, as was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liebengood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, I know. ?But Hewitt was the Boss. ?If he had thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judyth was on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> level, he would have done the story. ?And he must have felt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty smug
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for not doing so if he bothered to watch that Nigel Turner
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judyth could not present even one scrap of evidence or a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> single witness to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove that she ever knew Oswald, let alone worked in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> secret get-Castro
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lab. ?60 Minutes kicked you all to the curb eight years ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Oct. 2000
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but you're still clinging to the idea that Hewitt wanted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the story
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and those mean, old "higher-ups" killed it. ?Drop the subject.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JGL- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>
>>
END QUOTE
>

[ss679x]

McAdams conflicting responses were to Tink Thompson. But you get a nod as
one who 'decisively refuted those researchers who think the Zapruder film
is forged or tampered with". p 193

However, that statement begs the question that there is no provenance to
the Zapruder film(s) and that they were shown in various places when Time
was supposed to have had them under lock and key.

So the compliment may be well-intended, but incorrect. There will always
be questions about the Z-film(s) to those who dare to ask questions about
it.

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com.

[ss679x]

On Sep 19, 9:37 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 9/19/2011 6:50 PM, Gerry Simone wrote:
>
> > Once again a LNer will exaggerate a CT's view or COMBINE alternate
> > scenarios to make the CT position look ridiculous.
>
> You have to feel sorry for them. That's all they know how to do.
> They can't argue the facts.

A great irony I am seeing in the McAdams book is that the tactics he says
he uses to debunk conspiracy theories, such as distrusting all
eyewitnesses as they are notoriously unreliable, can also be used against
the WCR.

[Anthony Marsh]

> END QUOTE
>>


Silly. How desperate are you? Did you post a scan of Judyth's letter
before I did? No. Did anyone else? No, I did. Did you go to the Kennedy
Library and find her letter? No. Did anyone else? No, I did.

[bigdog]

On Sep 20, 6:04 pm, ss679x <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 9:37 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On 9/19/2011 6:50 PM, Gerry Simone wrote:
>
> > > Once again a LNer will exaggerate a CT's view or COMBINE alternate
> > > scenarios to make the CT position look ridiculous.
>
> > You have to feel sorry for them. That's all they know how to do.
> > They can't argue the facts.
>
> A great irony I am seeing in the McAdams book is that the tactics he says
> he uses to debunk conspiracy theories, such as distrusting all
> eyewitnesses as they are notoriously unreliable, can also be used against
> the WCR.
>

Not really. The WC gave some weight to the recollections of eyewitnesses,
but for the most part, its conclusions are based on and consistent with
the hard physical evidence. Without any eyewitnesses whatsoever, a
compelling case can be made that Oswald was JFK's assassin.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't care that there will always be questions about the Zapruder film.
Like why it was hidden for so many years. Why it was mishandled. Why they
screwed up the frame order when they published it in the WR. It was the
silly questions about the ghost images and other perceived anomalies which
led me to find the answers which let the film prove itself to be
authentic.

[ss679x]

What 'hard physical evidence'?

The SS had possession of the limo, for example, for 12 hours after the
assassination. They provided no record of what they did, no diagrams,
nothing. There was a lack of accountability, and as a result, everything
that turned up needs to be questioned. How do we know the limo was not
sanitized -- because the SS tells us so? Really?

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

[Barb Junkkarinen]

On 20 Sep 2011 19:54:05 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Yes, you did, Anthony. After it was suggested you do so. And since,
according to you, you were going there anyway, you said you'd look
even though you doubted you's find anything Isee dialogue of how it
unfolded above).

And you were thanked by all for finding it, scanning it, and putting
it up for all to see. Several times! So go figure why you seem to have
the need to make it sound like you not only discovered sliced bread,
but planted the first wheat mankind had ever seen. So silly. :-)
>
>

[ss679x]

Not exactly; they led you to believe one of the copies is authentic.

[ss679x]

We're talking process, not theory. I explained it on this group last
spring. I also blogged:
http://findingjudyth.blogspot.com/

Note my last entry -- Judyth does not want me to contact her again.

I say my process has worked. Judyth does not seem to want to have her
credentials held up to scrutiny.

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

[ss679x]

McAdams seems to have a curious habit of claiming CTs 'try to make a
conspiracy witness' out of someone. That is a strawman. Then he goes
and debunks his strawman. LOL.

Two examples of this are J.C. Price, p. 15 and Lee Bowers, p. 16-17.

Apparently, nobody told him about weighing and evaluating witnesses
statements rather than trying to force them into a category?

[Anthony Marsh]

Oops. I didn't think of that. So you might have a theory that the print
we are arguing about is authentic, but the other two prints might be
fakes? Fun. Let's hear how and why you might think the other two prints
are fakes? What would be the point? Only to mislead the FBI, SS or CIA?

[ss679x]

I said no such thing. How did you come up with that wacky theory? Did
you even bother to identify which copy of the Z-film(s) you were
referencing?

[Anthony Marsh]

We were discussing the master print. What most uninformed people just call
THE Zapruder film. You might want to call it the middle print to
differentiate it. The one in my article which was used to make the MPI
release and the one which Roland Zavada authenticated for the ARRB. So why
did you say that only one copy was authentic? Which copies do you think
were not authentic? I guess you could mean the bootleg black and white
copies we used to pass around. Who analyzed those for serious research?
Lifton?

[ss679x]

You were, not I. And you didn't specify that, did you? Nor did you
mention that that version of the Z-films has at least two splices in
it. That film has been altered, don't you agree?

You might want to call it the middle print to
> differentiate it. The one in my article which was used to make the MPI
> release and the one which Roland Zavada authenticated for the ARRB

You chose to believe his opinion. I do not find it persuasive.

. So why
> did you say that only one copy was authentic?

Never said any of them was authentic. That is YOUR wacky theory.

Which copies do you think
> were not authentic? I guess you could mean the bootleg black and white
> copies we used to pass around. Who analyzed those for serious research?
> Lifton?

What are you running on about? You are just making things up.

[Gerry Simone]

There is a diagram but my 6 year old nephew could've drawn a better one.

"ss679x" <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ffbc83e-661e-4182...@y7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

I wrote MY article BEFORE his.
Tell me what you did not believe.

>
> . So why
>> did you say that only one copy was authentic?
>
> Never said any of them was authentic. That is YOUR wacky theory.
>
> Which copies do you think
>> were not authentic? I guess you could mean the bootleg black and white
>> copies we used to pass around. Who analyzed those for serious research?
>> Lifton?
>
> What are you running on about? You are just making things up.
>
>

Then why don't you just come right out and admit that you are an
alterationist?
Do you believe all the evidence is fake?
I have not seen you refute anything in my articles.

[Gerry Simone]

The 'hard phyiscal evidence' can be easily called into question too, and
one can't ignore the plethora of circumstantial evidence against the LAT.

Example:

Hard physical evidence - CE399, barely deformed, no evidence of biological
matter whatsoever and its chain of possession is sketchy at best, or lack
of fingerprints on MC & controversy therein, no evidence that it was
actually fired that day,

Circumstantial evidence - what we see on the Zapruder film (backward head
snap, JFK's earlier signs of reaction versus lapel flip or later reaction
by Connally, etc., etc.), FBI report of Miami threat as existence of a
conspiracy, etc.


"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e16aa4c0-7163-40b3...@w8g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

[timstter]

On Sep 20, 8:40 am, ss679x <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 3:27 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > On Sep 18, 12:07 pm, ss679x <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I gritted my teeth and prepurchased this, realizing I would have to
> > > bit the bullet and read it sooner or later.
>
> > > The question I will be asking is how someone who seems to be entirely
> > > ungrounded in process and apparently oblivious for a need to reason
> > > assassination issues through will manage to write anything of value
> > > that tells others how to think..
>
> > > Hmmm...
>

> > No one could ever work out YOUR process vis-a-vis Judyth Vary Baker.
>
> > Until we all realised you didn't really have one.
>
> Au contraire; not only do I have one, but it works.  You just don't
> like it.

I read your blog. I didn't see any *process* except apart from a
generalised *let's all refrain from judging Baker for about five years
because I kinda like her* process.

That's HARDLY a way to conduct objective research!

By the time YOU joined the debunking party, Baker was already cactus.

The scanner was on the lawn, so to speak.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[Barb Junkkarinen]

And it took you all these years to figure that out? ROTFL

What do you make, Pamela, of the poor threatened, assaulted, fearing
for her life, forced into hiding and exile JVB announcing herself that
she will be appearing in Tornto on LHO's birthday .... where paperback
copies of her book will be available and she will be there to meet and
greet and sign?


>
>Pamela Brown
>www.in-broad-daylight.com

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Exactly, Tim. :-)

[ss679x]

On Sep 23, 3:30 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There is a diagram but my 6 year old nephew could've drawn a better one.

That diagram came from the FBI, who were allowed to do a forensic exam
in the early morning hours of November 23rd, not the SS, who had
possession of the car for the first twelve hours after the
assassination.

[ss679x]

Why do you try to pidgeonhole people in your fake categories?

> Do you believe all the evidence is fake?
> I have not seen you refute anything in my articles.

Nonsense. You just don't like it that I question the evidence.
Somebody needs to.

Your articles are not where my focus is at this time. If you really
believed them wouldn't you would argue coherently rather than becoming
negative?

You are trying to defend a version of the Z-film as 'authentic' that
you know has been altered. What category does that put you in?

You call on Zavada's appeal to authority without bothering to provide
the proper orientation -- he was a Kodak employee; he was not
objective.

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

[David Von Pein]

>>> "How do we know the limo was not sanitized -- because the SS tells us so? Really?" <<<

Yes....really.

If a conspiracy theorist actually wants to postulate the idea that all
of the limo evidence is fake, they've got a very big hurdle to
overcome:

How (and when, and by whom) did the Secret Service (or the FBI) manage
to plant the two large bullet fragments from OSWALD'S RIFLE in the
limousine?

Oswald's rifle, we know, was in Dallas and was in the possession of
the DPD until about 11:45 PM (CST) on Fri., Nov. 22. Then it went to
the FBI in Washington. So neither the SS or the FBI had physical
possession of Oswald's Carcano until about 12 hours after the
assassination.

Do CTers actually think that the Secret Service and/or FBI just
INVENTED the notion that the fragments were found in the front seat
area of JFK's limousine? They just made that up out of thin air? Is
that it?

If that's the silly theory that conspiracists want to endorse, then
they should at least have the decency to tell the world what evidence
they've got to accuse the Secret Service (and maybe the FBI too) of
such a vile, despicable evidence-planting deed.

But, naturally, no conspiracy theorist on Earth can supply any
evidence to substantiate their continuing claims of evidence
manipulation in the JFK case. All we ever get are comments like this
one:

"How do we know the limo was not sanitized -- because the SS
tells us so?"

Footnote ----

The theory that CE567 and CE569 are fake/planted bullet fragments
almost certainly MUST be a theory that a lot of conspiracy theorists
endorse, whether they know it or not. Because if those two bullet
fragments are legitimate pieces of evidence in this case, it
positively means that OSWALD'S RIFLE was being fired at President
Kennedy in Dealey Plaza.

And those two bullet fragments, in conjunction with Oswald's own
actions and all of the other many things of a physical nature, go a
long way toward incriminating the owner of the rifle that was
conclusively linked to those two front-seat bullet fragments. And that
owner's name was Lee Harvey Oswald.

When arguing with conspiracy theorists over the years, I've noticed
that those two limo bullet fragments don't very often come up in
conversation. And I think there's a very good reason why CTers like to
distance themselves from those two very important (and Oswald-
incriminating) pieces of bullet evidence.

The CTers can't possibly even begin to prove that those fragments
weren't really found in the front seat of JFK's car. And the CTers
can't begin to support their nutty idea that ALL of the physical
evidence against Oswald in the JFK and Tippit murders is fake,
planted, or phony.

So the conspiracists normally just ignore the two limo fragments from
LHO's gun. I guess maybe they think those fragments will just go away
if they don't talk about them very much.

But those fragments aren't going to suddenly disappear from the
official record in this murder case. They are there...and there to
stay. And those fragments indicate a very important thing:

Those fragments indicate that the rifle owned by Lee H. Oswald was the
weapon that killed President John F. Kennedy.

And that's a stubborn fact that many conspiracy theorists just simply
do not want to accept. And they never will.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't think she said anything about being afraid of Canadian authorities.

>
>>
>> Pamela Brown
>> www.in-broad-daylight.com

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/23/2011 4:30 PM, Gerry Simone wrote:
> There is a diagram but my 6 year old nephew could've drawn a better one.
>

What are you babbling about? Which diagram?
Do you mean the FBI diagram? It was drawn on the spot while they were
examining the limo.

It was not to scale and not meant to be accurate. What's that word again?
Schematic?
Rough drawing?
Crime scene sketch?

[John McAdams]

On 24 Sep 2011 09:02:04 -0400, ss679x <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sep 23, 3:30 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> There is a diagram but my 6 year old nephew could've drawn a better one.
>
>That diagram came from the FBI, who were allowed to do a forensic exam
>in the early morning hours of November 23rd, not the SS, who had
>possession of the car for the first twelve hours after the
>assassination.

It was the job of the FBI to examine the limo, which Frazier did.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

I suppose unemployed people are the only "objective" experts.

But of course, people with bona fide technical qualifications (not
Harry Livingston or Bob Groden) tend to be employeed.

So your logic would exclude all bona fide technical experts.

How *terribly* convenient.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/24/2011 9:03 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "How do we know the limo was not sanitized -- because the SS tells us so? Really?"<<<
>
> Yes....really.
>
> If a conspiracy theorist actually wants to postulate the idea that all
> of the limo evidence is fake, they've got a very big hurdle to
> overcome:
>

Straw Man Argument. No one said ALL. Can you at least admit that some
evidence was destroyed or will you think you then have to admit
conspiracy?

> How (and when, and by whom) did the Secret Service (or the FBI) manage
> to plant the two large bullet fragments from OSWALD'S RIFLE in the
> limousine?
>

We know the SS had control of the limo all the time so we are not
obligated to tell you an exact second. And some of us are more concerned
about what was removed and thrown away than anyone planting anything.

> Oswald's rifle, we know, was in Dallas and was in the possession of
> the DPD until about 11:45 PM (CST) on Fri., Nov. 22. Then it went to
> the FBI in Washington. So neither the SS or the FBI had physical
> possession of Oswald's Carcano until about 12 hours after the
> assassination.
>

Not relevant. You don't wait until after the assassination to frame the
patsy (unless your name is Nixon).

> Do CTers actually think that the Secret Service and/or FBI just
> INVENTED the notion that the fragments were found in the front seat
> area of JFK's limousine? They just made that up out of thin air? Is
> that it?
>

No. No one said anything like that.

> If that's the silly theory that conspiracists want to endorse, then
> they should at least have the decency to tell the world what evidence
> they've got to accuse the Secret Service (and maybe the FBI too) of
> such a vile, despicable evidence-planting deed.
>

How about the photographic evidence which you refused to acknowledge
which shows a SS agent cleaning out the back seat. Which I found, not you.

> But, naturally, no conspiracy theorist on Earth can supply any
> evidence to substantiate their continuing claims of evidence
> manipulation in the JFK case. All we ever get are comments like this
> one:
>

Ok, I get it. Another Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Unless we can prove
something your default assumption must be true.

> "How do we know the limo was not sanitized -- because the SS
> tells us so?"
>

Because the SS lied?

> Footnote ----
>
> The theory that CE567 and CE569 are fake/planted bullet fragments
> almost certainly MUST be a theory that a lot of conspiracy theorists
> endorse, whether they know it or not. Because if those two bullet
> fragments are legitimate pieces of evidence in this case, it
> positively means that OSWALD'S RIFLE was being fired at President
> Kennedy in Dealey Plaza.
>

Yeah, so what?
Where did the missing lead core from the base fragment go? What
condition was the nose fragment in when it was recovered and what
condition is it in now?

> And those two bullet fragments, in conjunction with Oswald's own
> actions and all of the other many things of a physical nature, go a
> long way toward incriminating the owner of the rifle that was
> conclusively linked to those two front-seat bullet fragments. And that
> owner's name was Lee Harvey Oswald.
>

Yeah, that's the idea. To frame Oswald.

> When arguing with conspiracy theorists over the years, I've noticed
> that those two limo bullet fragments don't very often come up in
> conversation. And I think there's a very good reason why CTers like to
> distance themselves from those two very important (and Oswald-
> incriminating) pieces of bullet evidence.
>

Sure, sure. You haven't noticed that I have written hundreds of messages
about them.

> The CTers can't possibly even begin to prove that those fragments
> weren't really found in the front seat of JFK's car. And the CTers

No one even wants to bother trying to prove such a nutty theory.
What they could do is claim that the fragments were conveniently planted
to frame Oswald. Like the two detectives on a drug bust.
The first detective looks in a drawer and it is empty. Then 10 minutes
later the second detective goes in and finds 10 pounds of cocaine in the
'empty' drawer.

> can't begin to support their nutty idea that ALL of the physical
> evidence against Oswald in the JFK and Tippit murders is fake,
> planted, or phony.
>

You need to rely on phony arguments like that because you can't debate
the facts.

> So the conspiracists normally just ignore the two limo fragments from
> LHO's gun. I guess maybe they think those fragments will just go away
> if they don't talk about them very much.
>

So, where were you when I was explaining the two limo fragments? Sucking
your thumb? Why weren't you at my presentation at COPA?

> But those fragments aren't going to suddenly disappear from the
> official record in this murder case. They are there...and there to
> stay. And those fragments indicate a very important thing:
>

So please tell us which fragments did suddenly disappear from the
official record in this murder case and PROVE who made them disappear
and why.

> Those fragments indicate that the rifle owned by Lee H. Oswald was the
> weapon that killed President John F. Kennedy.
>

Wow. Did you figure that out all by yourself?

> And that's a stubborn fact that many conspiracy theorists just simply
> do not want to accept. And they never will.
>

Many? Like 3 or 4?

[Anthony Marsh]

Why are you embarrassed to admit what you are?

>> Do you believe all the evidence is fake?
>> I have not seen you refute anything in my articles.
>
> Nonsense. You just don't like it that I question the evidence.
> Somebody needs to.
>

I repeat, you have not refuted anything I have written.

> Your articles are not where my focus is at this time. If you really
> believed them wouldn't you would argue coherently rather than becoming
> negative?
>

I am negative when people are making up crap.

> You are trying to defend a version of the Z-film as 'authentic' that
> you know has been altered. What category does that put you in?
>

Libelous. I do not know it has been altered. I know it has been damaged.
Not the same thing.

> You call on Zavada's appeal to authority without bothering to provide
> the proper orientation -- he was a Kodak employee; he was not
> objective.
>

My article was before Zavada's. He has a legitimate appeal to authority,
because he IS the leading authority on 8 mm home movies.
Kodak had no vested interest in proving the film authentic. All they did
was make the filmstock.

> Pamela Brown
> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/24/2011 9:02 AM, ss679x wrote:

> On Sep 23, 3:30 pm, "Gerry Simone"<newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> There is a diagram but my 6 year old nephew could've drawn a better one.
>
> That diagram came from the FBI, who were allowed to do a forensic exam
> in the early morning hours of November 23rd, not the SS, who had
> possession of the car for the first twelve hours after the
> assassination.

Why the Hell should the SS make any diagrams? They were not crime scene
investigators.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/24/2011 12:15 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2011 09:02:11 -0400, ss679x<ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 23, 5:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 9/23/2011 9:15 AM, ss679x wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Then why don't you just come right out and admit that you are an
>>> alterationist?
>>
>> Why do you try to pidgeonhole people in your fake categories?
>>
>>> Do you believe all the evidence is fake?
>>> I have not seen you refute anything in my articles.
>>
>> Nonsense. You just don't like it that I question the evidence.
>> Somebody needs to.
>>
>> Your articles are not where my focus is at this time. If you really
>> believed them wouldn't you would argue coherently rather than becoming
>> negative?
>>
>> You are trying to defend a version of the Z-film as 'authentic' that
>> you know has been altered. What category does that put you in?
>>
>> You call on Zavada's appeal to authority without bothering to provide
>> the proper orientation -- he was a Kodak employee; he was not
>> objective.
>>
>
> I suppose unemployed people are the only "objective" experts.
>

I'm not sure I understand the logic of your prejudice.
Are you saying that professional writers are no employed?
Was anyone claiming that only unemployed people are qualified to write
about something?

> But of course, people with bona fide technical qualifications (not
> Harry Livingston or Bob Groden) tend to be employeed.
>
> So your logic would exclude all bona fide technical experts.
>

It's a basic distrust of government experts after decades of official
lying by government experts.
It's like when a doctor does a study which concludes that smoking is
good for your health. Then we find out he works for the tobacco company
which paid him $25M to reach that conclusion.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/24/2011 12:12 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2011 09:02:04 -0400, ss679x<ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 23, 3:30 pm, "Gerry Simone"<newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> There is a diagram but my 6 year old nephew could've drawn a better one.
>>
>> That diagram came from the FBI, who were allowed to do a forensic exam
>> in the early morning hours of November 23rd, not the SS, who had
>> possession of the car for the first twelve hours after the
>> assassination.
>
> It was the job of the FBI to examine the limo, which Frazier did.
>

I have a technical question for you. At that time the case was only a
local case being investigated by the DPD. We know the DPD crime lab busy
gathering evidence at the TSBD. But does the SS or the FBI have the right
to tamper with crime scene evidence which should be examined by the local
authorities who have jurisdiction?

[ss679x]

Not yet anyway.

[ss679x]

On Sep 24, 11:12 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2011 09:02:04 -0400, ss679x <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 23, 3:30 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> There is a diagram but my 6 year old nephew could've drawn a better one.
>
> >That diagram came from the FBI, who were allowed to do a forensic exam
> >in the early morning hours of November 23rd, not the SS, who had
> >possession of the car for the first twelve hours after the
> >assassination.
>
> It was the job of the FBI to examine the limo, which Frazier did.

The murder took place in Dallas. The DPD wanted to do a forensic exam.
But they weren't able to, because the limo had already been whisked away
by the SS.

Frazier only did the FBI exam 12 hours after the assassination because
the SS finally allowed him to.

Don't twist the facts.

[ss679x]

On Sep 24, 6:47 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/24/2011 9:02 AM, ss679x wrote:
>
> > On Sep 23, 3:30 pm, "Gerry Simone"<newdecent...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
> >> There is a diagram but my 6 year old nephew could've drawn a better one.
>
> > That diagram came from the FBI, who were allowed to do a forensic exam
> > in the early morning hours of November 23rd, not the SS, who had
> > possession of the car for the first twelve hours after the
> > assassination.
>
> Why the Hell should the SS make any diagrams? They were not crime scene
> investigators.

What on earth were they doing poring over the limo for twelve hours then
without making any diagrams or writing any reports? You are making my
point for me.

[ss679x]

Actually, it seemed to take Judyth all those years to see where I was
coming from.

>
> What do you make, Pamela, of the poor threatened, assaulted, fearing
> for her life, forced into hiding and exile JVB announcing herself that
> she will be appearing in Tornto on LHO's birthday .... where paperback
> copies of her book will be available and she will be there to meet and
> greet and sign?

I don't see her as a disease as you seem to, that the innocent public
needs to be protected from. I don't see what she is doing as much
different than somebody such as McAdams trying to promote an LNT book.

The JFK assassination has always been a circus.

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

[David Von Pein]

Tony Marsh apparently wants to ignore the fact that many, many CTers
on the Internet must certainly believe that ALL of the evidence that
hangs their precious patsy has been faked/planted/altered/manipulated.
Every last item.

Because if even a very small percentage of the many things that
incriminate Oswald are genuine and NOT fake, then their prized patsy
is guilty of two murders on 11/22. Simple as that.

And the Internet CT clowns will never admit to such an "Oswald Is
Guilty" scenario. Never. Therefore, ALL of the evidence that points to
LHO must be fake in their skewed eyes.

And, no, Tony, I wasn't present at the glorious "COPA" conference
where you discussed CE567/569. Sorry I missed that gem of a
presentation. I'm sure it must have been worthy of CNN coverage. But I
usually stay away from places where the obvious conclusions about an
assassination are totally ignored. (Except here on the Internet, that
is.)

Did Jack Ruby bring in sandwiches and soft drinks for all the COPA
conspiracy mongers, Tony?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/24/2011 10:19 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> Tony Marsh apparently wants to ignore the fact that many, many CTers
> on the Internet must certainly believe that ALL of the evidence that
> hangs their precious patsy has been faked/planted/altered/manipulated.
> Every last item.
>

Not MANY, MANY. You only say things like that to discredit all research.

> Because if even a very small percentage of the many things that
> incriminate Oswald are genuine and NOT fake, then their prized patsy
> is guilty of two murders on 11/22. Simple as that.
>

Garbage.

One or two things alone do not convict Oswald. The autopsy photographs and
X-rays are genuine as is the Zapruder film. They do not tell you who
pulled the trigger. Secondly you make up this phony argument that if
Oswald is guilty there was no conspiracy. The FBI and WC were convinced
that Oswald was guilty AND part of a conspiracy. The HSCA concluded that
Oswald was a shooter AND part of a conspiracy. We don't need your phony
arguments and insults accusing researchers of trying to prove Oswald
innocent. Knock it off.

> And the Internet CT clowns will never admit to such an "Oswald Is
> Guilty" scenario. Never. Therefore, ALL of the evidence that points to
> LHO must be fake in their skewed eyes.
>

Yeah, what, like all 7 of them?

> And, no, Tony, I wasn't present at the glorious "COPA" conference
> where you discussed CE567/569. Sorry I missed that gem of a

You didn't even read it when I posted it on my Web site.
You were too busy looking for videos of strippers to put on your YouTube
page.

> presentation. I'm sure it must have been worthy of CNN coverage. But I
> usually stay away from places where the obvious conclusions about an
> assassination are totally ignored. (Except here on the Internet, that
> is.)
>
> Did Jack Ruby bring in sandwiches and soft drinks for all the COPA
> conspiracy mongers, Tony?
>

How about if you concentrate on doing actual research instead of
insulting people?

[Barb Junkkarinen]

On 24 Sep 2011 22:17:26 -0400, ss679x <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sep 24, 6:47�pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 9/24/2011 9:02 AM, ss679x wrote:
>>
>> > On Sep 23, 3:30 pm, "Gerry Simone"<newdecent...@hotmail.com> �wrote:
>> >> There is a diagram but my 6 year old nephew could've drawn a better one.
>>
>> > That diagram came from the FBI, who were allowed to do a forensic exam
>> > in the early morning hours of November 23rd, not the SS, who had
>> > possession of the car for the first twelve hours after the
>> > assassination.
>>
>> Why the Hell should the SS make any diagrams? They were not crime scene
>> investigators.
>
>What on earth were they doing poring over the limo for twelve hours then
>without making any diagrams or writing any reports? You are making my
>point for me.

Sooo.... were they "poring over the limo" while it was in the dark as
night hold of the plane while it came back to DC (Aside from the short
trip down to the hold, under orders, to look for a bullet ... which
was quickly abandoned because it was too dark down there, and too
creepy)? Or while it was being driven back to the WH garage? Or while
it was secured, covered and in a guarded bay while in the garage
before known and documented exams were conducted?

Dead people are often held at the morgue for many hours before an
autopsy is performed. Does that make any autopsy findings suspect
because, afterall, they had the body all those hours before the
autopsy?

Unless you have some specific charges ... and specific support ...
against any member(s) of the SS who had the opportunity to do anything
to that limo in your proclaimed 12 hours, then it is a bit surprising
to see you once again libeling the SS .... as you used to do on your
website when you claimed the SS had "sanitized" the limo. You seem to
be heading back into those waters again. Go figure.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

On 24 Sep 2011 09:03:05 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

David...please ... do not saddle all CTs with Pamela-think. Thank you.
:-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

On 24 Sep 2011 09:03:43 -0400, Anthony Marsh
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

Nor did I say she had. :-)
>
>>
>>>
>>> Pamela Brown
>>> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Okay, gotta give you that one ... that's funny! (and a more realistic
view besides)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

John McAdams gives his opinions and assessments, which he, like all of
us, is entitled to do. He does not hold himself out as a witness ...
participant really in many respects ... having the inside knowledge of
the plot, the deed and the aftermath. That is, imo, a pox not only on
those who truly want to know the actual whole truth, and whose
endeavors should not be obsfucated by false trails ... but a pox on
the accuracy of our nation's history and the tragedy that was the
killing of our president.

That's a huge difference ... one I am surprised you cannot see. Or
that you would use it just to take a shot at John McAdams (or anyone
else, as you have regularly done over the last several years). Sad.
Especially in your supposedly now enlightened state about JVB's story.

>
>The JFK assassination has always been a circus.

For sure!

Barb :-)
>
>Pamela Brown
>www.in-broad-daylight.com

[timstter]

LOL! That's a pretty good point!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/24/2011 10:17 PM, ss679x wrote:
> On Sep 24, 6:47 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 9/24/2011 9:02 AM, ss679x wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 23, 3:30 pm, "Gerry Simone"<newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There is a diagram but my 6 year old nephew could've drawn a better one.
>>
>>> That diagram came from the FBI, who were allowed to do a forensic exam
>>> in the early morning hours of November 23rd, not the SS, who had
>>> possession of the car for the first twelve hours after the
>>> assassination.
>>
>> Why the Hell should the SS make any diagrams? They were not crime scene
>> investigators.
>
> What on earth were they doing poring over the limo for twelve hours then
> without making any diagrams or writing any reports? You are making my
> point for me.
>

Incompetence does not equal conspiracy.
You can complain all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they
didn't know what the Hell they were doing.
And who says that they did not write reports?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/24/2011 10:17 PM, ss679x wrote:

> On Sep 24, 11:12 am, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 24 Sep 2011 09:02:04 -0400, ss679x<ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 23, 3:30 pm, "Gerry Simone"<newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There is a diagram but my 6 year old nephew could've drawn a better one.
>>
>>> That diagram came from the FBI, who were allowed to do a forensic exam
>>> in the early morning hours of November 23rd, not the SS, who had
>>> possession of the car for the first twelve hours after the
>>> assassination.
>>
>> It was the job of the FBI to examine the limo, which Frazier did.
>
> The murder took place in Dallas. The DPD wanted to do a forensic exam.

Supposition. Prove that the DPD were planning to examine the limousine.
They didn't even guard it carefully.

> But they weren't able to, because the limo had already been whisked away
> by the SS.
>
> Frazier only did the FBI exam 12 hours after the assassination because
> the SS finally allowed him to.
>

Prove that the SS was actively preventing Frazier from examining the limo.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Not MANY, MANY. You only say things like that to discredit all research." <<<

Bullshit. The vast majority of CTers who post regularly on Internet
forums that I have conversed with are totally convinced that Oswald
was an INNOCENT PATSY (i.e., he never fired a shot at anybody on
11/22/63).

Good heavens, even a very smart man like Mark Lane is convinced that
Oswald never shot JFK or Tippit. That's Mark Lane! A CT guru since
1963.

So, yes, my "many, many" statement is totally accurate when it comes
to INTERNET CTers--and you know it is. You just like to argue--as per
usual.

>>> "Secondly you make up this phony argument that if Oswald is guilty there was no conspiracy." <<<

Quote me saying that, Tony (in just exactly that manner). Of course,
you'll never find such a quote by me, because no such quote exists
with me stating that if Oswald is guilty there absolutely could not
have been a conspiracy. Marsh is making shit up--again.

>>> "The FBI and WC were convinced that Oswald was guilty AND part of a conspiracy." <<<

More pure bullshit from Marsh the Mangler.

>>> "We don't need your phony arguments and insults accusing researchers of trying to prove Oswald
innocent." <<<

What "phony arguments" are those, Marsh?

I would have thought you were aware by now that a huge number of your
fellow conspiracy clowns (especially on the Internet) do, indeed,
believe in Oswald's complete innocence.

I guess I was mistaken. Marsh seems to think that a vast majority of
Internet CTers believe that Oswald was GUILTY of killing JFK. But
Marsh, as usual, is wrong.

>>> "You didn't even read it when I posted it on my Web site." <<<

You're right. I didn't. (You've got a website, eh?)

>>> "You were too busy looking for videos of strippers to put on your YouTube page." <<<

More pure tommyrot from Marsh. Point to one stripper on my YouTube
channels. (Not counting Janet Conforto, who is interviewed by WFAA in
one of my videos.)

>>> "How about if you concentrate on doing actual research instead of insulting people?" <<<

I've done plenty of research to know that my LN position holds up just
fine....even under the scrutiny of such gallant and noble conspiracy-
seeking researchers as W. Anthony Marsh.

Now, show me those strippers. I need some entertainment before
beginning my next evil disinfo campaign.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "David...please ... do not saddle all CTs with Pamela-think." <<<

Barb,

It's not just "Pamela-think". It's a vast majority of Internet CTers
who think Oswald was completely innocent of shooting JFK and Tippit.
Ergo, those Anybody-But-Oswald CTers have no choice but to also
believe that all of the physical evidence against LHO is fake (e.g.,
the guns, the bullets, the shells, the paper bag, LHO's prints, the
fibers, and the eyewitnesses who fingered Oswald).

You're surely not suggesting, Barb, that a majority of conspiracists
who post regularly on Internet forums are of the opinion that Oswald
was GUILTY, are you? Come now. Almost all of the regular posters think
Oswald was set up and was an innocent patsy.

Therefore, how can those conspiracy theorists possibly believe that
ANY of the physical evidence I just outlined above is truly
legitimate?

If they were to admit that the evidence is legit, they are forfeiting
their belief that Oswald was innocent. At least from any kind of a
rational "common sense" perspective.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/25/2011 12:51 AM, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2011 22:17:26 -0400, ss679x<ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 24, 6:47 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 9/24/2011 9:02 AM, ss679x wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 23, 3:30 pm, "Gerry Simone"<newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> There is a diagram but my 6 year old nephew could've drawn a better one.
>>>
>>>> That diagram came from the FBI, who were allowed to do a forensic exam
>>>> in the early morning hours of November 23rd, not the SS, who had
>>>> possession of the car for the first twelve hours after the
>>>> assassination.
>>>
>>> Why the Hell should the SS make any diagrams? They were not crime scene
>>> investigators.
>>
>> What on earth were they doing poring over the limo for twelve hours then
>> without making any diagrams or writing any reports? You are making my
>> point for me.
>
> Sooo.... were they "poring over the limo" while it was in the dark as
> night hold of the plane while it came back to DC (Aside from the short
> trip down to the hold, under orders, to look for a bullet ... which
> was quickly abandoned because it was too dark down there, and too
> creepy)? Or while it was being driven back to the WH garage? Or while
> it was secured, covered and in a guarded bay while in the garage
> before known and documented exams were conducted?
>

Silly. Some SS agent saw something on the plane back to Washington.
But there was no crime lab team. Just regular agents.
How are the SS exams documented? Are you going to upload the documents?

> Dead people are often held at the morgue for many hours before an
> autopsy is performed. Does that make any autopsy findings suspect
> because, afterall, they had the body all those hours before the
> autopsy?
>

It does when the body was illegally stolen and the autopsy doctors were
ordered to lie.

> Unless you have some specific charges ... and specific support ...
> against any member(s) of the SS who had the opportunity to do anything
> to that limo in your proclaimed 12 hours, then it is a bit surprising
> to see you once again libeling the SS .... as you used to do on your
> website when you claimed the SS had "sanitized" the limo. You seem to
> be heading back into those waters again. Go figure.

Well, maybe not you, but I do have the film which shows the SS agent
with a wet towel in his and and apparently trying to wash out the back seat.

[ss679x]

He does hold himself up as someone who is thinks they are 'credible'
though, don't you think?

> participant really in many respects ... having the inside knowledge of
> the plot, the deed and the aftermath. That is, imo, a pox not only on
> those who truly want to know the actual whole truth, and whose
> endeavors should not be obsfucated by false trails ... but a pox on
> the accuracy of our nation's history and the tragedy that was the
> killing of our president.

If Judyth were claiming LHO told her he intended to kill JFK I would
probably see her in a different light. But history regarding the JFK
assassination has been repeatedly assaulted from every direction from what
I can see, so her statements are just another variation on, at least, the
CT theme.

Nonetheless, if I were planning to come forward and claim that I was the
Holy Grail of the assassination, I would hope to have enough courage to
insist that all my credentials be held up to scrutiny and would spare
nothing to the end of winning over the community. That has not happened.

>
> That's a huge difference ... one I am surprised you cannot see.

I see posturing on both sides. Whom do you think has more clout --
Judyth, who has been defamed and ridiculed and feels she cannot live
in the US, or a prof of a good university whose book gets published by
a reputable publisher?

> Or
> that you would use it just to take a shot at John McAdams (or anyone
> else, as you have regularly done over the last several years).

McAdams has thick skin and the backing of MU. I think he and his book can
handle statements of opinion from me, even without your rushing in to
protect him.

> Sad.
> Especially in your supposedly now enlightened state about JVB's story.
>

"Enlightened"? That implies that you know where I am at and what I
will say. Really? Has that ever been the case?

"Evolved" is the term I would use.

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

[ss679x]

On Sep 24, 11:15 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2011 09:02:11 -0400, ss679x <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 23, 5:26 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 9/23/2011 9:15 AM, ss679x wrote:
>
> >> Then why don't you just come right out and admit that you are an
> >> alterationist?
>
> >Why do you try to pidgeonhole people in your fake categories?
>
> >> Do you believe all the evidence is fake?
> >> I have not seen you refute anything in my articles.
>
> >Nonsense.  You just don't like it that I question the evidence.
> >Somebody needs to.
>
> >Your articles are not where my focus is at this time.  If you really
> >believed them wouldn't you would argue coherently rather than becoming
> >negative?
>
> >You are trying to defend a version of the Z-film as 'authentic' that
> >you know has been altered.  What category does that put you in?
>
> >You call on Zavada's appeal to authority without bothering to provide
> >the proper orientation -- he was a Kodak employee; he was not
> >objective.
>
> I suppose unemployed people are the only "objective" experts.

You are, of course, missing my point. This was a piece of Kodak film.
Zavada worked for Kodak. Fox watching the henhouse. An expert NOT
working for Kodak might have had an objective stance.

>
> But of course, people with bona fide technical qualifications (not
> Harry Livingston or Bob Groden) tend to be employeed.

Very silly.

>
> So your logic would exclude all bona fide technical experts.

False axiom, false conclusion.

>
> How *terribly* convenient.

Just what sort of 'logic' are you using here? I call it a strawman.

>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/25/2011 12:04 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "David...please ... do not saddle all CTs with Pamela-think."<<<
>
> Barb,
>
> It's not just "Pamela-think". It's a vast majority of Internet CTers
> who think Oswald was completely innocent of shooting JFK and Tippit.

Oh, I see. Because you can't prove your original statement you modify it
to make it less objectionable. I predict that next week you change it to
LEFTHANDED Internet CTers.

> Ergo, those Anybody-But-Oswald CTers have no choice but to also

There are no such people. It's just a figment of your imagination to
insult anyone who want to find out what happened. Much like the
militarists who attacked anyone who defended Dreyfus. Or a certain Senator
in the 50s who attacked anyone who questioned his tactics.

> believe that all of the physical evidence against LHO is fake (e.g.,
> the guns, the bullets, the shells, the paper bag, LHO's prints, the
> fibers, and the eyewitnesses who fingered Oswald).
>

You can't find anyone who believes that all the evidence is fake. You
are a fantasist creating enemies because you can't defend your position.

> You're surely not suggesting, Barb, that a majority of conspiracists
> who post regularly on Internet forums are of the opinion that Oswald
> was GUILTY, are you? Come now. Almost all of the regular posters think
> Oswald was set up and was an innocent patsy.
>

Guilty and part of a conspiracy? You mean like the majority of the public?

> Therefore, how can those conspiracy theorists possibly believe that
> ANY of the physical evidence I just outlined above is truly
> legitimate?
>

Well, why don't you pick and choose which evidence is legitimate.
Anything which says conspiracy you can call fake.

> If they were to admit that the evidence is legit, they are forfeiting
> their belief that Oswald was innocent. At least from any kind of a
> rational "common sense" perspective.
>

It has absolutely nothing to do with Oswald's guilt or innocence. You are
just trying to insult conspiracy believers by claiming that they are
protecting a guilty man. That's so last Century.

[Anthony Marsh]

I forget what they call that in rhetoric. Where you say something which
implies a contradiction when no such contradiction exists.

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pamela Brown
>>>> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>>

[David Von Pein]

>>> "You can't find anyone who believes that all the evidence is fake." <<<

Let me name just a few, for starters:

Jim DiEugenio.
Mark Lane.
Jim Garrison.
Bob Groden.


Those four men above think Oswald was totally innocent of shooting JFK
& Tippit. And since all of the evidence in those two murder cases
points directly at Oswald, the only choice those four men have is to
pretend that the evidence against Oswald is fake or phony (or at least
the vast majority of the evidence at any rate, but most likely ALL the
evidence has been tampered with, per those CTers).

Because if they actually admit that any of the evidence is legit*,
then they are pretty much saying that Lee Harvey Oswald is the best
candidate for having committed the murders. And those CTers I just
mentioned definitely do not like the idea of having to admit that Mr.
Oswald could have possibly committed those crimes. They like their
Anybody-But-Oz fantasies too much to admit anything like that.

* = And by "any evidence" here, I'm talking here about the physical
things, like guns, bullets, shells, prints, fibers, the paper bag, and
the eyewitnesses. I'm not talking about the backyard photos or the
Zapruder Film in this particular instance, because those things do not
prove Oswald killed anybody, although the backyard pictures do,
indeed, tend to incriminate Oswald in the sense that the pictures
prove (for all time) that Oswald possessed a bolt-action rifle in the
year 1963 which (of course) is yet another thing that conspiracy
clowns like DiEugenio and Lane (et al) wouldn't admit if their lives
hung in the balance.

You, Tony, naturally had to mention thjose two things (the backyard
photos and the Z-Film) when responding to an earlier post of mine
concerning this "All Evidence Is Fake" topic. And, naturally, you
chose two items that are only peripheral to proving Oswald's guilt,
while no doubt realizing that I was talking mainly about things that
DO go a long way toward proving Oswald's guilt -- e.g., the guns, the
bullets, the shells, the paper bag with LHO"s prints on it, and the
witnesses, etc.

I'd like to see a poll among Internet CTers, where they would answer
this question:

WHICH ITEMS IN EVIDENCE TODAY IN CONNECTION WITH THE JFK & TIPPIT
MURDERS DO YOU BELIEVE IS VALID, LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE THAT HAS NOT BEEN
FAKED, PLANTED, OR OTHERWISE MANIPULATED?

The list of items on any such list written by a conspiracy theorist
who frequently posts at Internet JFK forums is going to be mighty,
mighty short indeed. Because if such a list isn't mighty short--then
their patsy is probably guilty of murder, isn't he?

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

[ss679x]

On Sep 24, 8:03 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "How do we know the limo was not sanitized -- because the SS tells us so? Really?" <<<
>

> Yes....really.

Apparently it is a tenet of the faith of a LNT that they believe
everything they are told?

>
> If a conspiracy theorist actually wants to postulate the idea that all
> of the limo evidence is fake, they've got a very big hurdle to
> overcome:

Such a big hurdle that one cannot even ask questions?

Here are two:

Who owned the limo?

Who was conveniently absent from the Dallas trip?

>
> How (and when, and by whom) did the Secret Service (or the FBI) manage
> to plant the two large bullet fragments from OSWALD'S RIFLE in the
> limousine?
>
> Oswald's rifle, we know, was in Dallas and was in the possession of
> the DPD until about 11:45 PM (CST) on Fri., Nov. 22. Then it went to
> the FBI in Washington. So neither the SS or the FBI had physical

> possession of Oswald's Carcano until about 12 hours after the
> assassination.
>

> Do CTers actually think that the Secret Service and/or FBI just
> INVENTED the notion that the fragments were found in the front seat
> area of JFK's limousine? They just made that up out of thin air? Is
> that it?
>
> If that's the silly theory that conspiracists want to endorse, then
> they should at least have the decency to tell the world what evidence
> they've got to accuse the Secret Service (and maybe the FBI too) of
> such a vile, despicable evidence-planting deed.
>
> But, naturally, no conspiracy theorist on Earth can supply any
> evidence to substantiate their continuing claims of evidence
> manipulation in the JFK case. All we ever get are comments like this
> one:
>

>       "How do we know the limo was not sanitized -- because the SS
> tells us so?"
>

> Footnote ----
>
> The theory that CE567 and CE569 are fake/planted bullet fragments
> almost certainly MUST be a theory that a lot of conspiracy theorists
> endorse, whether they know it or not. Because if those two bullet
> fragments are legitimate pieces of evidence in this case, it
> positively means that OSWALD'S RIFLE was being fired at President
> Kennedy in Dealey Plaza.
>

> And those two bullet fragments, in conjunction with Oswald's own
> actions and all of the other many things of a physical nature, go a

> long way toward incriminating the owner of the rifle that was
> conclusively linked to those two front-seat bullet fragments. And that
> owner's name was Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> When arguing with conspiracy theorists over the years, I've noticed
> that those two limo bullet fragments don't very often come up in
> conversation. And I think there's a very good reason why CTers like to
> distance themselves from those two very important (and Oswald-
> incriminating) pieces of bullet evidence.
>
> The CTers can't possibly even begin to prove that those fragments
> weren't really found in the front seat of JFK's car. And the CTers

> can't begin to support their nutty idea that ALL of the physical

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/26/2011 3:07 PM, ss679x wrote:
> On Sep 24, 8:03 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "How do we know the limo was not sanitized -- because the SS tells us so? Really?"<<<
>>
>> Yes....really.
>
> Apparently it is a tenet of the faith of a LNT that they believe
> everything they are told?
>
>>
>> If a conspiracy theorist actually wants to postulate the idea that all
>> of the limo evidence is fake, they've got a very big hurdle to
>> overcome:
>
> Such a big hurdle that one cannot even ask questions?
>
> Here are two:
>
> Who owned the limo?
>
> Who was conveniently absent from the Dallas trip?
>

I am not a fan of these type of mystery questions. If you have point to
make, just come right out with it.

[ss679x]

On Sep 24, 6:30 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 9/24/2011 9:02 AM, ss679x wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 23, 5:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >> On 9/23/2011 9:15 AM, ss679x wrote:
>

> >>> On Sep 22, 12:05 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>    wrote:
> >>>> On 9/22/2011 12:07 PM, ss679x wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sep 22, 10:57 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>      wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/21/2011 5:27 PM, ss679x wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Sep 20, 9:03 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>        wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 9/20/2011 6:03 PM, ss679x wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sep 19, 9:37 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>          wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2011 6:54 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 19 Sep 2011 18:51:41 -0400, ss679x<ss6...@gmail.com>            wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 9:07=A0pm, ss679x<ss6...@gmail.com>            wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I gritted my teeth and prepurchased this, realizing I would have to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bit the bullet and read it sooner or later.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The question I will be asking is how someone who seems to be entirely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ungrounded in process and apparently oblivious for a need to reason
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> assassination issues through will manage to write anything of value
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that tells others how to think..
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm...
>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Puzzling book.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> McAdams has criticized one dissenter for pushing seeing a figure in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Moorman photo, then complimented him on debunking the t&t windshield hole
> >>>>>>>>>>>> theory.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this evidence of objectivity or just a loose end?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You must be talking about Tink Thompson.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> No, I hope he's talking about me. BTW, I think he has accidentally
> >>>>>>>>>> complimented me for proving that the Zapruder film is authentic.
>
> >>>>>>>>> McAdams conflicting responses were to Tink Thompson.  But you get a nod as
> >>>>>>>>> one who 'decisively refuted those researchers who think the Zapruder film
> >>>>>>>>> is forged or tampered with".  p 193
>
> >>>>>>>>> However, that statement begs the question that there is no provenance to
> >>>>>>>>> the Zapruder film(s) and that they were shown in various places when Time
> >>>>>>>>> was supposed to have had them under lock and key.
>
> >>>>>>>>> So the compliment may be well-intended, but incorrect.  There will always
> >>>>>>>>> be questions about the Z-film(s) to those who dare to ask questions about
> >>>>>>>>> it.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Pamela Brown
> >>>>>>>>>www.in-broad-daylight.com.
>
> >>>>>>>> I don't care that there will always be questions about the Zapruder film.
> >>>>>>>> Like why it was hidden for so many years. Why it was mishandled. Why they
> >>>>>>>> screwed up the frame order when they published it in the WR. It was the
> >>>>>>>> silly questions about the ghost images and other perceived anomalies which
> >>>>>>>> led me to find the answers which let the film prove itself to be
> >>>>>>>> authentic.
>
> >>>>>>> Not exactly; they led you to believe one of the copies is authentic.
>
> >>>>>> Oops. I didn't think of that. So you might have a theory that the print
> >>>>>> we are arguing about is authentic, but the other two prints might be
> >>>>>> fakes? Fun. Let's hear how and why you might think the other two prints
> >>>>>> are fakes? What would be the point? Only to mislead the FBI, SS or CIA?
>
> >>>>> I said no such thing. How did you come up with that wacky theory?  Did
> >>>>> you even bother to identify which copy of the Z-film(s) you were
> >>>>> referencing?
>
> >>>> We were discussing the master print. What most uninformed people just call
> >>>> THE Zapruder film.
>
> >>> You were, not I.  And you didn't specify that, did you?  Nor did you
> >>> mention that that version of the Z-films has at least two splices in
> >>> it.  That film has been altered, don't you agree?
>
> >>> You might want to call it the middle print to
> >>>> differentiate it. The one in my article which was used to make the MPI
> >>>> release and the one which Roland Zavada authenticated for the ARRB
>
> >>> You chose to believe his opinion.  I do not find it persuasive.
>
> >> I wrote MY article BEFORE his.
> >> Tell me what you did not believe.
>
> >>> . So why
> >>>> did you say that only one copy was authentic?
>
> >>> Never said any of them was authentic.  That is YOUR wacky theory.
>
> >>> Which copies do you think
> >>>> were not authentic? I guess you could mean the bootleg black and white
> >>>> copies we used to pass around. Who analyzed those for serious research?
> >>>> Lifton?
>
> >>> What are you running on about?  You are just making things up.

>
> >> Then why don't you just come right out and admit that you are an
> >> alterationist?
>
> > Why do you try to pidgeonhole people in your fake categories?
>

> Why are you embarrassed to admit what you are?

Why are we not allowed to ask questions about the evidence without? What
can possibly be so dangerous about that?

>
> >> Do you believe all the evidence is fake?
> >> I have not seen you refute anything in my articles.
>
> > Nonsense.  You just don't like it that I question the evidence.
> > Somebody needs to.
>

> I repeat, you have not refuted anything I have written.

Who cares what you have written? If you keep your blinders firmly in
place, what value will it have?

> > Your articles are not where my focus is at this time.  If you really
> > believed them wouldn't you would argue coherently rather than becoming
> > negative?
>

> I am negative when people are making up crap.

Yet you make up crap when you demand we accept evidence as valid just
because the WCR does.

>
> > You are trying to defend a version of the Z-film as 'authentic' that
> > you know has been altered.  What category does that put you in?
>

> Libelous. I do not know it has been altered. I know it has been damaged.
> Not the same thing.

Yes it is. That is alteration. The film was changed. And you pretend it
was not. Why?

>
> > You call on Zavada's appeal to authority without bothering to provide
> > the proper orientation -- he was a Kodak employee; he was not
> > objective.
>

> My article was before Zavada's. He has a legitimate appeal to authority,
> because he IS the leading authority on 8 mm home movies.
> Kodak had no vested interest in proving the film authentic. All they did
> was make the filmstock.

I don't care. He was in no position to be objective. Your perspective is
too narrow. If you really believed what you wrote you would be able to
discuss it rationally.

>
> > Pamela Brown
> >www.in-broad-daylight.com

[ss679x]

On Sep 25, 10:58 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/24/2011 10:17 PM, ss679x wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 6:47 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >> On 9/24/2011 9:02 AM, ss679x wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 23, 3:30 pm, "Gerry Simone"<newdecent...@hotmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>> There is a diagram but my 6 year old nephew could've drawn a better one.
>
> >>> That diagram came from the FBI, who were allowed to do a forensic exam
> >>> in the early morning hours of November 23rd, not the SS, who had
> >>> possession of the car for the first twelve hours after the
> >>> assassination.
>
> >> Why the Hell should the SS make any diagrams? They were not crime scene
> >> investigators.
>
> > What on earth were they doing poring over the limo for twelve hours then
> > without making any diagrams or writing any reports?  You are making my
> > point for me.
>
> Incompetence does not equal conspiracy.

Incompetence is your opinion. It is not mine.

> You can complain all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they
> didn't know what the Hell they were doing.

Oh really? I find that hard to believe. In fact, that just sounds
like an excuse.

> And who says that they did not write reports?

Nothing was documented until the Rowley letter of Jan, 1964. And that
would not even have been written if it were not for the Ferguson
memo.

Just how far will you go to try to shore up the shoddy treatment of
the limo given by the SS?

If Vaughn Ferguson had been on the Texas trip, as he had on all the
others the limo went on, things would have been different.

[ss679x]

On Sep 26, 5:04 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/26/2011 3:07 PM, ss679x wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 8:03 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com>  wrote:
> >>>>> "How do we know the limo was not sanitized -- because the SS tells us so? Really?"<<<
>
> >> Yes....really.
>
> > Apparently it is a tenet of the faith of a LNT that they believe
> > everything they are told?
>
> >> If a conspiracy theorist actually wants to postulate the idea that all
> >> of the limo evidence is fake, they've got a very big hurdle to
> >> overcome:
>
> > Such a big hurdle that one cannot even ask questions?
>
> > Here are two:
>
> > Who owned the limo?
>
> > Who was conveniently absent from the Dallas trip?
>
> I am not a fan of these type of mystery questions. If you have point to
> make, just come right out with it.

The questions were directed at DVP, not you. You should know these
things.

The limo was owned by the Ford Motor Company and leased to the WHG for
$500 a year. FMC provided a liaison to the WHG who was responsible
for the maintenance of the limo and almost always accompanied it on
its trips. That was Vaughn Ferguson. He was told at the last minute
to stay in DC and get the cars ready for the upcoming Army-Navy game.
He was not present on the Texas trip.

His memo, which you will recall was sent to me by accident by NARA
while it was still being suppressed (you got it released) provides the
best timeline we have of what happened to the limo after the
assassination. All of this was part of my NID 2002 presentation which
didn't make it to DVD because of audio/visual mishaps at JFKLancer
that year. I am in the process of redoing it.

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

[Barb Junkkarinen]

How?

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't think that's accurate.

> Just how far will you go to try to shore up the shoddy treatment of
> the limo given by the SS?
>

No one is excusing their mistakes. Don't fall into the same trap as
Palamara and claim it proves conspiracy.

> If Vaughn Ferguson had been on the Texas trip, as he had on all the
> others the limo went on, things would have been different.

Not much.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/27/2011 10:31 PM, ss679x wrote:
> On Sep 26, 5:04 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 9/26/2011 3:07 PM, ss679x wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 24, 8:03 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "How do we know the limo was not sanitized -- because the SS tells us so? Really?"<<<
>>
>>>> Yes....really.
>>
>>> Apparently it is a tenet of the faith of a LNT that they believe
>>> everything they are told?
>>
>>>> If a conspiracy theorist actually wants to postulate the idea that all
>>>> of the limo evidence is fake, they've got a very big hurdle to
>>>> overcome:
>>
>>> Such a big hurdle that one cannot even ask questions?
>>
>>> Here are two:
>>
>>> Who owned the limo?
>>
>>> Who was conveniently absent from the Dallas trip?
>>
>> I am not a fan of these type of mystery questions. If you have point to
>> make, just come right out with it.
>
> The questions were directed at DVP, not you. You should know these
> things.
>
> The limo was owned by the Ford Motor Company and leased to the WHG for

So what?

> $500 a year. FMC provided a liaison to the WHG who was responsible
> for the maintenance of the limo and almost always accompanied it on
> its trips. That was Vaughn Ferguson. He was told at the last minute
> to stay in DC and get the cars ready for the upcoming Army-Navy game.
> He was not present on the Texas trip.
>

You have yet to prove that he was with the limo on every trip.
At lot of changes were made at the last minute. That alone proves
conspiracy? Kicking out Stoughton so he couldn't take the photo showing
the shooter on the grassy knoll?

> His memo, which you will recall was sent to me by accident by NARA
> while it was still being suppressed (you got it released) provides the
> best timeline we have of what happened to the limo after the
> assassination. All of this was part of my NID 2002 presentation which
> didn't make it to DVD because of audio/visual mishaps at JFKLancer
> that year. I am in the process of redoing it.
>

I'd like to see a copy and would be happy to help make copies for you.

> Pamela Brown
> www.in-broad-daylight.com

[Anthony Marsh]

A lot of people care because I proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. Then you come along and say it is fake. But you can't refute
any points in my article.

>>> Your articles are not where my focus is at this time. If you really
>>> believed them wouldn't you would argue coherently rather than becoming
>>> negative?
>>
>> I am negative when people are making up crap.
>
> Yet you make up crap when you demand we accept evidence as valid just
> because the WCR does.
>

Never.
Don't try to create enemies to make yourself look like the hero.

>>
>>> You are trying to defend a version of the Z-film as 'authentic' that
>>> you know has been altered. What category does that put you in?
>>
>> Libelous. I do not know it has been altered. I know it has been damaged.
>> Not the same thing.
>
> Yes it is. That is alteration. The film was changed. And you pretend it
> was not. Why?
>

Changed? Yeah, they changed the reel also. Ergo to you proof of
alteration. You are redefining the terms after you lost the argument.

>>
>>> You call on Zavada's appeal to authority without bothering to provide
>>> the proper orientation -- he was a Kodak employee; he was not
>>> objective.
>>
>> My article was before Zavada's. He has a legitimate appeal to authority,
>> because he IS the leading authority on 8 mm home movies.
>> Kodak had no vested interest in proving the film authentic. All they did
>> was make the filmstock.
>
> I don't care. He was in no position to be objective. Your perspective is
> too narrow. If you really believed what you wrote you would be able to
> discuss it rationally.
>

If the leading expert can not be objective, then who can? A janitor who
knows nothing about film?

>>
>>> Pamela Brown
>>> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
>

[ss679x]

What value does your opinion have? Have you any evidence?

>
> > Just how far will you go to try to shore up the shoddy treatment of
> > the limo given by the SS?
>
> No one is excusing their mistakes. Don't fall into the same trap as
> Palamara and claim it proves conspiracy.

What is so unnerving about daring to ask what really happened?

>
> > If Vaughn Ferguson had been on the Texas trip, as he had on all the
> > others the limo went on, things would have been different.
>

> Not much.[...]

I disagree. Ferguson has been the one clear voice on what actually
happened to the limo. It was FMC property. It did not belong to the
SS. You do acknowledge that, don't you?

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

[Anthony Marsh]

The two things are not related. Ferguson did not go on every trip. Jesus
Christ, Ferguson was the guy who ripped out the carpet and threw it
away. Do you know how many tiny lead core fragments were lost when he
did that?
Maybe from a non-WCC bullet.

> Pamela Brown
> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
>

[ss679x]

Really? Certainly not to my satisfaction.

>Then you come along and say it is fake.

I dare to ask questions. Are you unable to do the same?

> But you can't refute
> any points in my article.

As I have said, my focus is not 'your article'. Besides, even you
will agree it was written a long time ago.

>
> >>> Your articles are not where my focus is at this time.  If you really
> >>> believed them wouldn't you would argue coherently rather than becoming
> >>> negative?
>
> >> I am negative when people are making up crap.
>
> > Yet you make up crap when you demand we accept evidence as valid just
> > because the WCR does.
>
> Never.
> Don't try to create enemies to make yourself look like the hero.

What are you trying to say? What is the difference between a LNT who
refuses to question the evidence and a CT who refuses to question the
evidence?

>
>
>
> >>> You are trying to defend a version of the Z-film as 'authentic' that
> >>> you know has been altered.  What category does that put you in?
>
> >> Libelous. I do not know it has been altered. I know it has been damaged.
> >> Not the same thing.
>
> > Yes it is.  That is alteration.  The film was changed.  And you pretend it
> > was not.  Why?
>
> Changed? Yeah, they changed the reel also. Ergo to you proof of
> alteration. You are redefining the terms after you lost the argument.

You are in denial. You accept the excuse that the film was accidentially
'damaged' without exploring the possibility that it was done with intent.
And then you claim it is pristine.

>
>
>
> >>> You call on Zavada's appeal to authority without bothering to provide
> >>> the proper orientation -- he was a Kodak employee; he was not
> >>> objective.
>
> >> My article was before Zavada's. He has a legitimate appeal to authority,
> >> because he IS the leading authority on 8 mm home movies.
> >> Kodak had no vested interest in proving the film authentic. All they did
> >> was make the filmstock.
>
> > I don't care.  He was in no position to be objective.  Your perspective is
> > too narrow.  If you really believed what you wrote you would be able to
> > discuss it rationally.
>
> If the leading expert can not be objective, then who can? A janitor who
> knows nothing about film?

Another appeal to authority. Shall I give you a WC defender analogy? If
you can't believe the Chief Justice of the USA, whom can you believe?"

Get real, Anthony.

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

[Anthony Marsh]

You have not refuted anything I wrote. Want to go back to the privacy
window argument again?

>> Then you come along and say it is fake.
>
> I dare to ask questions. Are you unable to do the same?
>

You can ask a lot of silly questions and we never get anywhere.

>> But you can't refute
>> any points in my article.
>
> As I have said, my focus is not 'your article'. Besides, even you
> will agree it was written a long time ago.

Ok then, attack the Zavada article point by point.
At least you couldn't accuse me of working for Kodak!

>>
>>>>> Your articles are not where my focus is at this time. If you really
>>>>> believed them wouldn't you would argue coherently rather than becoming
>>>>> negative?
>>
>>>> I am negative when people are making up crap.
>>
>>> Yet you make up crap when you demand we accept evidence as valid just
>>> because the WCR does.
>>
>> Never.
>> Don't try to create enemies to make yourself look like the hero.
>
> What are you trying to say? What is the difference between a LNT who
> refuses to question the evidence and a CT who refuses to question the
> evidence?
>

It does us no good to intentionally make enemies out of friends and only
strengthens our shared enemies. The old divide and conquer strategy. Don't
fall for it.

>>
>>
>>
>>>>> You are trying to defend a version of the Z-film as 'authentic' that
>>>>> you know has been altered. What category does that put you in?
>>
>>>> Libelous. I do not know it has been altered. I know it has been damaged.
>>>> Not the same thing.
>>
>>> Yes it is. That is alteration. The film was changed. And you pretend it
>>> was not. Why?
>>
>> Changed? Yeah, they changed the reel also. Ergo to you proof of
>> alteration. You are redefining the terms after you lost the argument.
>
> You are in denial. You accept the excuse that the film was accidentially
> 'damaged' without exploring the possibility that it was done with intent.
> And then you claim it is pristine.
>

I never said pristine. It is damaged. It is dirty. There are many tears.

>>
>>
>>
>>>>> You call on Zavada's appeal to authority without bothering to provide
>>>>> the proper orientation -- he was a Kodak employee; he was not
>>>>> objective.
>>
>>>> My article was before Zavada's. He has a legitimate appeal to authority,
>>>> because he IS the leading authority on 8 mm home movies.
>>>> Kodak had no vested interest in proving the film authentic. All they did
>>>> was make the filmstock.
>>
>>> I don't care. He was in no position to be objective. Your perspective is
>>> too narrow. If you really believed what you wrote you would be able to
>>> discuss it rationally.
>>
>> If the leading expert can not be objective, then who can? A janitor who
>> knows nothing about film?
>
> Another appeal to authority. Shall I give you a WC defender analogy? If
> you can't believe the Chief Justice of the USA, whom can you believe?"
>

Not the same thing. If you want technical details about a camera you
don't ask the janitor you ask the inventor.

[ss679x]

I do that daily when you refuse to ask questions about the evidence.

> Want to go back to the privacy
> window argument again?

What does that have to do with this? If it wasn't for my research nobody
would know there had been a privacy window in the limo when it was
delivered to the White House. It was removed three months later. I
provided that document too.

>
> >> Then you come along and say it is fake.
>
> > I dare to ask questions.  Are you unable to do the same?
>
> You can ask a lot of silly questions and we never get anywhere.

With all due respect, when you jump into a subject and make assumptions
and try to demand that others follow your lead, just what question undoing
such a mess is 'silly'?

>
> >> But you can't refute
> >> any points in my article.
>
> > As I have said, my focus is not 'your article'.  Besides, even you
> > will agree it was written a long time ago.
>
> Ok then, attack the Zavada article point by point.

Why should I do that when I have already made it clear your article is
not my focus?

But here are a few very general questions.

Where in your article do you define the lack of provenance of the Z-
film(s) and, nevertheless, demonstrate that this copy is to your thinking
'authentic'?

Where do you share with us how you believe a film such as this could be
altered without affecting the inter-sprocket images and then demonstrate
that that was not what happened?

When do you set the existence of inter-sprocket images into context when
apparently only part of one copy of the film has them?

> At least you couldn't accuse me of working for Kodak!

Seems like you wish you had.

>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> Your articles are not where my focus is at this time.  If you really
> >>>>> believed them wouldn't you would argue coherently rather than becoming
> >>>>> negative?
>
> >>>> I am negative when people are making up crap.
>
> >>> Yet you make up crap when you demand we accept evidence as valid just
> >>> because the WCR does.
>
> >> Never.
> >> Don't try to create enemies to make yourself look like the hero.
>
> > What are you trying to say?  What is the difference between a LNT who
> > refuses to question the evidence and a CT who refuses to question the
> > evidence?
>
> It does us no good to intentionally make enemies out of friends and only
> strengthens our shared enemies. The old divide and conquer strategy. Don't
> fall for it.

You failed to answer my question. Instead, are you issuing some sort of
threat?

When is it of value to try to block the research of others, including the
asking of questions that have not yet been answered, whether you are a CT
or an LNT?

>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> You are trying to defend a version of the Z-film as 'authentic' that
> >>>>> you know has been altered.  What category does that put you in?
>
> >>>> Libelous. I do not know it has been altered. I know it has been damaged.
> >>>> Not the same thing.
>
> >>> Yes it is.  That is alteration.  The film was changed.  And you pretend it
> >>> was not.  Why?
>
> >> Changed? Yeah, they changed the reel also. Ergo to you proof of
> >> alteration. You are redefining the terms after you lost the argument.
>
> > You are in denial.  You accept the excuse that the film was accidentially
> > 'damaged' without exploring the possibility that it was done with intent.
> > And then you claim it is pristine.
>
> I never said pristine. It is damaged. It is dirty. There are many tears.

You call deliberate splicing 'tears'? You have no evidence that this
was not intentional.

>
>
>
>
> >>>>> You call on Zavada's appeal to authority without bothering to provide
> >>>>> the proper orientation -- he was a Kodak employee; he was not
> >>>>> objective.
>
> >>>> My article was before Zavada's. He has a legitimate appeal to authority,
> >>>> because he IS the leading authority on 8 mm home movies.
> >>>> Kodak had no vested interest in proving the film authentic. All they did
> >>>> was make the filmstock.
>
> >>> I don't care.  He was in no position to be objective.  Your perspective is
> >>> too narrow.  If you really believed what you wrote you would be able to
> >>> discuss it rationally.
>
> >> If the leading expert can not be objective, then who can? A janitor who
> >> knows nothing about film?
>
> > Another appeal to authority.  Shall I give you a WC defender analogy? If
> > you can't believe the Chief Justice of the USA, whom can you believe?"
>
> Not the same thing. If you want technical details about a camera you
> don't ask the janitor you ask the inventor.

You believe Zavada; LNTs believe Warren. You're calling Warren a
janitor?

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

[Anthony Marsh]

I answer all your silly questions.

>> Want to go back to the privacy
>> window argument again?
>
> What does that have to do with this? If it wasn't for my research nobody
> would know there had been a privacy window in the limo when it was
> delivered to the White House. It was removed three months later. I
> provided that document too.
>

You argued for months that the privacy window was still in the limo when
they went through Dealey Plaza.

>>
>>>> Then you come along and say it is fake.
>>
>>> I dare to ask questions. Are you unable to do the same?
>>
>> You can ask a lot of silly questions and we never get anywhere.
>
> With all due respect, when you jump into a subject and make assumptions
> and try to demand that others follow your lead, just what question undoing
> such a mess is 'silly'?
>

I have never done any of that.

>>
>>>> But you can't refute
>>>> any points in my article.
>>
>>> As I have said, my focus is not 'your article'. Besides, even you
>>> will agree it was written a long time ago.
>>
>> Ok then, attack the Zavada article point by point.
>
> Why should I do that when I have already made it clear your article is
> not my focus?
>

If you can't refute anything in my article, then try Zavada's article.

> But here are a few very general questions.
>
> Where in your article do you define the lack of provenance of the Z-
> film(s) and, nevertheless, demonstrate that this copy is to your thinking
> 'authentic'?
>

Not relevant. Even if the film were stolen it does not affect if it was
authentic or not. I repeat: The film proves itself authentic.

> Where do you share with us how you believe a film such as this could be
> altered without affecting the inter-sprocket images and then demonstrate
> that that was not what happened?
>

I have discussed that here before. I have also written more articles
about alteration beyond my original article.

> When do you set the existence of inter-sprocket images into context when
> apparently only part of one copy of the film has them?
>

ALL parts of ALL copies have inter-sprocket images. What you mean are
the ghost images and I explain that the only are created when the camera
is set to telephoto. Do you not understand that concept?

>> At least you couldn't accuse me of working for Kodak!
>
> Seems like you wish you had.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> Your articles are not where my focus is at this time. If you really
>>>>>>> believed them wouldn't you would argue coherently rather than becoming
>>>>>>> negative?
>>
>>>>>> I am negative when people are making up crap.
>>
>>>>> Yet you make up crap when you demand we accept evidence as valid just
>>>>> because the WCR does.
>>
>>>> Never.
>>>> Don't try to create enemies to make yourself look like the hero.
>>
>>> What are you trying to say? What is the difference between a LNT who
>>> refuses to question the evidence and a CT who refuses to question the
>>> evidence?
>>
>> It does us no good to intentionally make enemies out of friends and only
>> strengthens our shared enemies. The old divide and conquer strategy. Don't
>> fall for it.
>
> You failed to answer my question. Instead, are you issuing some sort of
> threat?

Not a threat. A caveat. Like any counter authority movement don't do the
work of the authority for them by creating false schisms.

>
> When is it of value to try to block the research of others, including the
> asking of questions that have not yet been answered, whether you are a CT
> or an LNT?
>

I have never blocked anyone's research. But I do warn them when they are
going down false trails.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> You are trying to defend a version of the Z-film as 'authentic' that
>>>>>>> you know has been altered. What category does that put you in?
>>
>>>>>> Libelous. I do not know it has been altered. I know it has been damaged.
>>>>>> Not the same thing.
>>
>>>>> Yes it is. That is alteration. The film was changed. And you pretend it
>>>>> was not. Why?
>>
>>>> Changed? Yeah, they changed the reel also. Ergo to you proof of
>>>> alteration. You are redefining the terms after you lost the argument.
>>
>>> You are in denial. You accept the excuse that the film was accidentially
>>> 'damaged' without exploring the possibility that it was done with intent.
>>> And then you claim it is pristine.
>>
>> I never said pristine. It is damaged. It is dirty. There are many tears.
>
> You call deliberate splicing 'tears'? You have no evidence that this
> was not intentional.
>

No, I am trying to come up with a term which I hope you can understand. If
I say something like cuts you will try to misinterpret that as alteration.
If I say breaks you will misinterpret that as missing frames. So I can't
find a word in English which you can understand. If I start using
technical language you will object.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> You call on Zavada's appeal to authority without bothering to provide
>>>>>>> the proper orientation -- he was a Kodak employee; he was not
>>>>>>> objective.
>>
>>>>>> My article was before Zavada's. He has a legitimate appeal to authority,
>>>>>> because he IS the leading authority on 8 mm home movies.
>>>>>> Kodak had no vested interest in proving the film authentic. All they did
>>>>>> was make the filmstock.
>>
>>>>> I don't care. He was in no position to be objective. Your perspective is
>>>>> too narrow. If you really believed what you wrote you would be able to
>>>>> discuss it rationally.
>>
>>>> If the leading expert can not be objective, then who can? A janitor who
>>>> knows nothing about film?
>>
>>> Another appeal to authority. Shall I give you a WC defender analogy? If
>>> you can't believe the Chief Justice of the USA, whom can you believe?"
>>
>> Not the same thing. If you want technical details about a camera you
>> don't ask the janitor you ask the inventor.
>
> You believe Zavada; LNTs believe Warren. You're calling Warren a
> janitor?
>

I am calling the alterationists the janitor.

> Pamela Brown
> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>

[ss679x]

No you don't. You just make silly statements.

>
> >> Want to go back to the privacy
> >> window argument again?
>
> > What does that have to do with this?  If it wasn't for my research nobody
> > would know there had been a privacy window in the limo when it was
> > delivered to the White House.  It was removed three months later. I
> > provided that document too.
>
> You argued for months that the privacy window was still in the limo when
> they went through Dealey Plaza.
>

I was mistaken about that. However, I am the one who pursued their being
a privacy window in the limo. It was present when the limo was delivered
to the White House. It was taken out three months later.

>
>
> >>>> Then you come along and say it is fake.
>
> >>> I dare to ask questions.  Are you unable to do the same?
>
> >> You can ask a lot of silly questions and we never get anywhere.

Translation: someone who asks good questions seems to be a threat to
the status quo.

>
> > With all due respect, when you jump into a subject and make assumptions
> > and try to demand that others follow your lead, just what question undoing
> > such a mess is 'silly'?
>
> I have never done any of that.

You are doing that now.

>
>
>
> >>>> But you can't refute
> >>>> any points in my article.
>
> >>> As I have said, my focus is not 'your article'.  Besides, even you
> >>> will agree it was written a long time ago.
>
> >> Ok then, attack the Zavada article point by point.
>
> > Why should I do that when I have already made it clear your article is
> > not my focus?
>
> If you can't refute anything in my article, then try Zavada's article.
>
> > But here are a few very general questions.
>
> > Where in your article do you define the lack of provenance of the Z-
> > film(s) and, nevertheless, demonstrate that this copy is to your thinking
> > 'authentic'?
>
> Not relevant. Even if the film were stolen it does not affect if it was
> authentic or not. I repeat: The film proves itself authentic.

That is circular reasoning. Authentic to what? Which part of the film?
Only the part that we know has inte-sprocket images? The provenance of the
Z-film(s) is indeed relevant to anyone attempting to evaluate it
objectively.

>
> > Where do you share with us how you believe a film such as this could be
> > altered without affecting the inter-sprocket images and then demonstrate
> > that that was not what happened?
>
> I have discussed that here before. I have also written more articles
> about alteration beyond my original article.

Dip and dive.

Your original article is the one under discussion. Your thesis seems to
be that a film cannot be altered without altering the inter- sprocket
images. That falls into the fallacy of false alternatives. Surely you are
aware of that?

>
> > When do you set the existence of inter-sprocket images into context when
> > apparently only part of one copy of the film has them?
>
> ALL parts of ALL copies have inter-sprocket images. What you mean are
> the ghost images and I explain that the only are created when the camera
> is set to telephoto. Do you not understand that concept?

Really? The home movie section? The FBI and SS copies?

>
>
>
> >> At least you couldn't accuse me of working for Kodak!
>
> > Seems like you wish you had.
>
> >>>>>>> Your articles are not where my focus is at this time.  If you really
> >>>>>>> believed them wouldn't you would argue coherently rather than becoming
> >>>>>>> negative?
>
> >>>>>> I am negative when people are making up crap.
>
> >>>>> Yet you make up crap when you demand we accept evidence as valid just
> >>>>> because the WCR does.
>
> >>>> Never.
> >>>> Don't try to create enemies to make yourself look like the hero.
>
> >>> What are you trying to say?  What is the difference between a LNT who
> >>> refuses to question the evidence and a CT who refuses to question the
> >>> evidence?
>
> >> It does us no good to intentionally make enemies out of friends and only
> >> strengthens our shared enemies. The old divide and conquer strategy. Don't
> >> fall for it.
>
> > You failed to answer my question.  Instead, are you issuing some sort of
> > threat?
>
> Not a threat. A caveat. Like any counter authority movement don't do the
> work of the authority for them by creating false schisms.

Sounds like an excuse. Anyone sincerely looking for the truth is my
friend.

>
>
>
> > When is it of value to try to block the research of others, including the
> > asking of questions that have not yet been answered, whether you are a CT
> > or an LNT?
>
> I have never blocked anyone's research. But I do warn them when they are

> going down ...

With all due respect, since you choose to accept the opinion of others
regarding the evidence you run the risk of not being in a position to warn
anyone but perhaps yourself.

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

[Anthony Marsh]

Not so silly if you understand what they mean.

>>
>>>> Want to go back to the privacy
>>>> window argument again?
>>
>>> What does that have to do with this? If it wasn't for my research nobody
>>> would know there had been a privacy window in the limo when it was
>>> delivered to the White House. It was removed three months later. I
>>> provided that document too.
>>
>> You argued for months that the privacy window was still in the limo when
>> they went through Dealey Plaza.
>>
>
> I was mistaken about that. However, I am the one who pursued their being
> a privacy window in the limo. It was present when the limo was delivered
> to the White House. It was taken out three months later.

You were the only one to bring it up and your theory was that it was still
there in 1963. I told you that was wrong. But did you take my word on it?
No, you continued to press your claim for months and called me part of the
cover-up. I had already seen all the known photos of the limo and knew for
a fact that the privacy window was not there in 1963. So your only way out
was to call me a liar.

>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Then you come along and say it is fake.
>>
>>>>> I dare to ask questions. Are you unable to do the same?
>>
>>>> You can ask a lot of silly questions and we never get anywhere.
>
> Translation: someone who asks good questions seems to be a threat to
> the status quo.
>

There is no status quo. There are many different beliefs.

>>
>>> With all due respect, when you jump into a subject and make assumptions
>>> and try to demand that others follow your lead, just what question undoing
>>> such a mess is 'silly'?
>>
>> I have never done any of that.
>
> You are doing that now.
>

No, I am pointing out the errors of your ways.

>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> But you can't refute
>>>>>> any points in my article.
>>
>>>>> As I have said, my focus is not 'your article'. Besides, even you
>>>>> will agree it was written a long time ago.
>>
>>>> Ok then, attack the Zavada article point by point.
>>
>>> Why should I do that when I have already made it clear your article is
>>> not my focus?
>>
>> If you can't refute anything in my article, then try Zavada's article.
>>
>>> But here are a few very general questions.
>>
>>> Where in your article do you define the lack of provenance of the Z-
>>> film(s) and, nevertheless, demonstrate that this copy is to your thinking
>>> 'authentic'?
>>
>> Not relevant. Even if the film were stolen it does not affect if it was
>> authentic or not. I repeat: The film proves itself authentic.
>
> That is circular reasoning. Authentic to what? Which part of the film?

Authentic as specified by the ARRB before they could recommend to the
National Archives that they pay $16M for an ORGINAL film. Not altered.
Damaged yes. Should they have gotten a discount for the damage like when
you guy a refrigerator with a scratch on it? Yes. 60% off.

> Only the part that we know has inte-sprocket images? The provenance of the
> Z-film(s) is indeed relevant to anyone attempting to evaluate it
> objectively.

It doesn't matter how many hands it passed through as long as we can prove
that it is the original. Just like a work of art which has been stolen and
hoarded for centuries.

>
>>
>>> Where do you share with us how you believe a film such as this could be
>>> altered without affecting the inter-sprocket images and then demonstrate
>>> that that was not what happened?
>>
>> I have discussed that here before. I have also written more articles
>> about alteration beyond my original article.
>
> Dip and dive.
>

Have you read them?

> Your original article is the one under discussion. Your thesis seems to
> be that a film cannot be altered without altering the inter- sprocket
> images. That falls into the fallacy of false alternatives. Surely you are
> aware of that?
>

No, I never said that. If you want to paint things on top of the main
frame you do not have to touch the existing sprocket hole area. Zavada
found no evidence of painting on the film stock. He was hired to make sure
it was authentic.

He had no mandate to theorize about what it shows.

>>
>>> When do you set the existence of inter-sprocket images into context when
>>> apparently only part of one copy of the film has them?
>>
>> ALL parts of ALL copies have inter-sprocket images. What you mean are
>> the ghost images and I explain that the only are created when the camera
>> is set to telephoto. Do you not understand that concept?
>
> Really? The home movie section? The FBI and SS copies?
>

Except where they were intentionally blocked out.
I have some ordinary home movies were someone inked out the sprocket
hole areas.

>>
>>
>>
>>>> At least you couldn't accuse me of working for Kodak!
>>
>>> Seems like you wish you had.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Your articles are not where my focus is at this time. If you really
>>>>>>>>> believed them wouldn't you would argue coherently rather than becoming
>>>>>>>>> negative?
>>
>>>>>>>> I am negative when people are making up crap.
>>
>>>>>>> Yet you make up crap when you demand we accept evidence as valid just
>>>>>>> because the WCR does.
>>
>>>>>> Never.
>>>>>> Don't try to create enemies to make yourself look like the hero.
>>
>>>>> What are you trying to say? What is the difference between a LNT who
>>>>> refuses to question the evidence and a CT who refuses to question the
>>>>> evidence?
>>
>>>> It does us no good to intentionally make enemies out of friends and only
>>>> strengthens our shared enemies. The old divide and conquer strategy. Don't
>>>> fall for it.
>>
>>> You failed to answer my question. Instead, are you issuing some sort of
>>> threat?
>>
>> Not a threat. A caveat. Like any counter authority movement don't do the
>> work of the authority for them by creating false schisms.
>
> Sounds like an excuse. Anyone sincerely looking for the truth is my
> friend.
>

You make enemies out of anyone who doesn't agree with you 100%. As you
did about the privacy window.

>>
>>
>>
>>> When is it of value to try to block the research of others, including the
>>> asking of questions that have not yet been answered, whether you are a CT
>>> or an LNT?
>>
>> I have never blocked anyone's research. But I do warn them when they are
>> going down ...
>
> With all due respect, since you choose to accept the opinion of others
> regarding the evidence you run the risk of not being in a position to warn
> anyone but perhaps yourself.
>

I have not accepted the opinion of others. I have done my own original
research.

> Pamela Brown
> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>

[ss679x]

On Sep 25, 10:57 am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2:15 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

>
>
>
> > On 24 Sep 2011 09:02:11 -0400, ss679x <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Sep 23, 5:26 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> On 9/23/2011 9:15 AM, ss679x wrote:
>
> > >> Then why don't you just come right out and admit that you are an
> > >> alterationist?
>
> > >Why do you try to pidgeonhole people in your fake categories?
>

> > >> Do you believe all the evidence is fake?
> > >> I have not seen you refute anything in my articles.
>
> > >Nonsense.  You just don't like it that I question the evidence.
> > >Somebody needs to.
>

> > >Your articles are not where my focus is at this time.  If you really
> > >believed them wouldn't you would argue coherently rather than becoming
> > >negative?
>

> > >You are trying to defend a version of the Z-film as 'authentic' that
> > >you know has been altered.  What category does that put you in?
>

> > >You call on Zavada's appeal to authority without bothering to provide
> > >the proper orientation -- he was a Kodak employee; he was not
> > >objective.
>

> > I suppose unemployed people are the only "objective" experts.
>

> > But of course, people with bona fide technical qualifications (not
> > Harry Livingston or Bob Groden) tend to be employeed.
>

> > So your logic would exclude all bona fide technical experts.
>

> > How *terribly* convenient.
>
> > .John
> > --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> LOL! That's a pretty good point!
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Except that it is illogical.

[Anthony Marsh]

You just said they did not write reports about examining the limo. That is
not true. They were writing reports all weekend. I have posted them on my
Web site. We have discussed them here before.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/t-gcd80_1.jpg
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/t-gcd80_2.jpg
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/t-gcd80_3.jpg

The FBI was also in contact with the SS and coordinating efforts to look
for evidence.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI_1272.tif

[ss679x]

Irrelevant to moving a discussion forward then.

>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> Want to go back to the privacy
> >>>> window argument again?
>
> >>> What does that have to do with this?  If it wasn't for my research nobody
> >>> would know there had been a privacy window in the limo when it was
> >>> delivered to the White House.  It was removed three months later. I
> >>> provided that document too.
>
> >> You argued for months that the privacy window was still in the limo when
> >> they went through Dealey Plaza.
>
> > I was mistaken about that.  However, I am the one who pursued their being
> > a privacy window in the limo.  It was present when the limo was delivered
> > to the White House.  It was taken out three months later.
>
> You were the only one to bring it up and your theory was that it was still
> there in 1963. I told you that was wrong. But did you take my word on it?
> No, you continued to press your claim for months and called me part of the
> cover-up. I had already seen all the known photos of the limo and knew for
> a fact that the privacy window was not there in 1963. So your only way out
> was to call me a liar.

You seem to be having a pity party. I recall apologizing to you and
Jack White for any misstatements, but perhaps in your zeal to make
some sort of obscure point about the Z-film(s) that has been
forgotten. Nevermind.
One might get the impression your interest in the assassination has
more to do with proving yourself 'right' and others 'wrong' than
moving things forward. I sincerely hope that isn't the case.

I was the one the JFK Library wrote to explaining there WAS a privacy
window installed. Of course I had to pursue that lead. The press release
photo demonstrated that it had been there in June, 1961. A later document
described the reconfiguring of the limo three months later. You had
nothing to do with that.

>
> >>>>>> Then you come along and say it is fake.
>
> >>>>> I dare to ask questions.  Are you unable to do the same?
>
> >>>> You can ask a lot of silly questions and we never get anywhere.
>
> > Translation:  someone who asks good questions seems to be a threat to
> > the status quo.
>
> There is no status quo. There are many different beliefs.

The status quo you seem to uphold is not to question the evidence.

>
>
>
> >>> With all due respect, when you jump into a subject and make assumptions
> >>> and try to demand that others follow your lead, just what question undoing
> >>> such a mess is 'silly'?
>
> >> I have never done any of that.
>
> > You are doing that now.
>
> No, I am pointing out the errors of your ways.

With all due respect, I believe you are in no position to do that here.
As you realize, my experience with the Z-film(s) is very different from
yours, having seen a screening of one of them in NYC in late 1964. So I
have to ask questions about everything connected to them, because I know
for certain that at the very least the vague statements made about
security are completely false. The version I saw did not have 'the blob',
so I also have to question why there seems to be a discrepancy between
that one and the one(s) on MPI.

If you read the Zavada report, part two, you will also find that one of
the first-gen copies went missing right after the assassination. It
supposedly ended up in the hands of Time/Life. Could a copy of that that
have been the version I saw? Could copies of that have been the version
that ended up in safes in the T/L executives homes in Greenwich Ct soon
after the assassination? > > > > > > >>>>>> But you can't refute > >>>>>>

any points in my article. > > >>>>> As I have said, my focus is not 'your

article'.  Besides, even yo u > >>>>> will agree it was written a long

time ago. > > >>>> Ok then, attack the Zavada article point by point. > >
>>> Why should I do that when I have already made it clear your article i
s > >>> not my focus? > > >> If you can't refute anything in my article,
then try Zavada's article. > > >>> But here are a few very general
questions. > > >>> Where in your article do you define the lack of
provenance of the Z- > >>> film(s) and, nevertheless, demonstrate that

this copy is to your thin king > >>> 'authentic'? > > >> Not relevant.
Even if the film were stolen it does not affect if it wa s > >> authentic

or not. I repeat: The film proves itself authentic. > > > That is circular
reasoning.  Authentic to what?  Which part of the film? > >
Authentic as specified by the ARRB before they could recommend to the >
National Archives that they pay $16M for an ORGINAL film.

Agreed that was the objective in hiring Zavada to scope the film(s).

> Not altered.
> Damaged yes.

Changed. Altered. Call it what you want. Not the same. Could have
been with intent. The govt didn't care. I do.

>Should they have gotten a discount for the damage like when
> you guy a refrigerator with a scratch on it? Yes. 60% off.

Ironically, the appeal to authority regarding Zavada that you like to
throw out apparently had no effect on Doug Horne of the ARRB, as he
has gone off on a tangent in the other direction.

You have yet to provide any evidence for your claim that all the
copies had inter-sprocket images in all places. When will you do
that?

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

[Anthony Marsh]

No, you didn't, don't be silly.

> have to ask questions about everything connected to them, because I know
> for certain that at the very least the vague statements made about
> security are completely false. The version I saw did not have 'the blob',
> so I also have to question why there seems to be a discrepancy between
> that one and the one(s) on MPI.
>
> If you read the Zavada report, part two, you will also find that one of
> the first-gen copies went missing right after the assassination. It

Where does it say went missing? Quote please. LIFE bought it.

> supposedly ended up in the hands of Time/Life. Could a copy of that that
> have been the version I saw? Could copies of that have been the version
> that ended up in safes in the T/L executives homes in Greenwich Ct soon

No, because you didn't see the Zapruder film in 1964. Could extra copies
have been made and given to top executives? Sure, so what?

> after the assassination?> > > > > > >>>>>> But you can't refute> >>>>>>
> any points in my article.> > >>>>> As I have said, my focus is not 'your

> article'. Besides, even yo= u> >>>>> will agree it was written a long

> time ago.> > >>>> Ok then, attack the Zavada article point by point.> >

>>>> Why should I do that when I have already made it clear your article i=

> s> >>> not my focus?> > >> If you can't refute anything in my article,
> then try Zavada's article.> > >>> But here are a few very general
> questions.> > >>> Where in your article do you define the lack of
> provenance of the Z-> >>> film(s) and, nevertheless, demonstrate that

> this copy is to your thin=ing> >>> 'authentic'?> > >> Not relevant.
> Even if the film were stolen it does not affect if it wa=> >> authentic

> or not. I repeat: The film proves itself authentic.> > > That is circular

> reasoning. Authentic to what? Which part of the = film?> >

> Authentic as specified by the ARRB before they could recommend to the>
> National Archives that they pay $16M for an ORGINAL film.
>
> Agreed that was the objective in hiring Zavada to scope the film(s).
>
>> Not altered.
>> Damaged yes.
>
> Changed. Altered. Call it what you want. Not the same. Could have
> been with intent. The govt didn't care. I do.
>

Damaged accidentally is not altered intentionally.

>
>> Should they have gotten a discount for the damage like when
>> you guy a refrigerator with a scratch on it? Yes. 60% off.
>
> Ironically, the appeal to authority regarding Zavada that you like to
> throw out apparently had no effect on Doug Horne of the ARRB, as he
> has gone off on a tangent in the other direction.
>

Doug Horne is not a reliable source. He is a Liftonite.

[tom...@cox.net]

ss679x <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 28, 8:46=A0am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On 9/27/2011 9:58 PM, ss679x wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 24, 6:30 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>

> > > =A0wrote:

> > >> On 9/24/2011 9:02 AM, ss679x wrote:
> >

> > >>> On Sep 23, 5:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> =A0
> > >>> =A0w=

> rote:
> > >>>> On 9/23/2011 9:15 AM, ss679x wrote:
> >

> > >>>>> On Sep 22, 12:05 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> =A0
> > >>>>> =
> =A0 =A0wrote:

> > >>>>>> On 9/22/2011 12:07 PM, ss679x wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>> On Sep 22, 10:57 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>

> > >>>>>>> =A0=
> =A0 =A0 =A0wrote:

> > >>>>>>>> On 9/21/2011 5:27 PM, ss679x wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>> On Sep 20, 9:03 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>

> > >>>>>>>>> =
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0wrote:

> > >>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2011 6:03 PM, ss679x wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 19, 9:37 pm, Anthony

> > >>>>>>>>>>> Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> =
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0wrote:

> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2011 6:54 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 Sep 2011 18:51:41 -0400, ss679x<ss6...@gmail.com>

> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> =A0=
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 9:07=3DA0pm, ss679x<ss6...@gmail.com> =A0 =A0
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0wrote:

> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I gritted my teeth and prepurchased this, realizing I

> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wou=

> ld have to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit the bullet and read it sooner or later.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question I will be asking is how someone who seems

> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to=

> be entirely
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ungrounded in process and apparently oblivious for a

> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need=

> to reason
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assassination issues through will manage to write

> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anythin=

> g of value
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that tells others how to think..
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm...
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Puzzling book.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> McAdams has criticized one dissenter for pushing seeing

> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a =

> figure in the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moorman photo, then complimented him on debunking the

> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> t&t =

> windshield hole
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this evidence of objectivity or just a loose end?
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You must be talking about Tink Thompson.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> No, I hope he's talking about me. BTW, I think he has

> > >>>>>>>>>>>> accide=

> ntally
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> complimented me for proving that the Zapruder film is

> > >>>>>>>>>>>> authen=
> tic.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>> McAdams conflicting responses were to Tink Thompson. =A0But
> > >>>>>>>>>>> y=

> ou get a nod as
> > >>>>>>>>>>> one who 'decisively refuted those researchers who think the

> > >>>>>>>>>>> Z=
> apruder film
> > >>>>>>>>>>> is forged or tampered with". =A0p 193

> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>> However, that statement begs the question that there is no

> > >>>>>>>>>>> pr=

> ovenance to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the Zapruder film(s) and that they were shown in various

> > >>>>>>>>>>> plac=

> es when Time
> > >>>>>>>>>>> was supposed to have had them under lock and key.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>> So the compliment may be well-intended, but incorrect.

> > >>>>>>>>>>> =A0The=

> re will always
> > >>>>>>>>>>> be questions about the Z-film(s) to those who dare to ask

> > >>>>>>>>>>> que=

> stions about
> > >>>>>>>>>>> it.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Pamela Brown
> > >>>>>>>>>>>www.in-broad-daylight.com.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>> I don't care that there will always be questions about the

> > >>>>>>>>>> Zap=

> ruder film.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Like why it was hidden for so many years. Why it was

> > >>>>>>>>>> mishandle=

> d. Why they
> > >>>>>>>>>> screwed up the frame order when they published it in the WR.

> > >>>>>>>>>> I=

> t was the
> > >>>>>>>>>> silly questions about the ghost images and other perceived

> > >>>>>>>>>> ano=

> malies which
> > >>>>>>>>>> led me to find the answers which let the film prove itself

> > >>>>>>>>>> to =

> be
> > >>>>>>>>>> authentic.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>> Not exactly; they led you to believe one of the copies is

> > >>>>>>>>> authe=

> ntic.
> >
> > >>>>>>>> Oops. I didn't think of that. So you might have a theory that

> > >>>>>>>> th=

> e print
> > >>>>>>>> we are arguing about is authentic, but the other two prints

> > >>>>>>>> migh=

> t be
> > >>>>>>>> fakes? Fun. Let's hear how and why you might think the other

> > >>>>>>>> two=

> prints
> > >>>>>>>> are fakes? What would be the point? Only to mislead the FBI,

> > >>>>>>>> SS =

> or CIA?
> >
> > >>>>>>> I said no such thing. How did you come up with that wacky

> > >>>>>>> theory?=
> =A0Did

> > >>>>>>> you even bother to identify which copy of the Z-film(s) you
> > >>>>>>> were referencing?
> >
> > >>>>>> We were discussing the master print. What most uninformed people

> > >>>>>> j=

> ust call
> > >>>>>> THE Zapruder film.
> >

> > >>>>> You were, not I. =A0And you didn't specify that, did you? =A0Nor
> > >>>>> di=

> d you
> > >>>>> mention that that version of the Z-films has at least two splices

> > >>>>> i=
> n
> > >>>>> it. =A0That film has been altered, don't you agree?

> >
> > >>>>> You might want to call it the middle print to
> > >>>>>> differentiate it. The one in my article which was used to make

> > >>>>>> the=

> MPI
> > >>>>>> release and the one which Roland Zavada authenticated for the
> > >>>>>> ARRB
> >

> > >>>>> You chose to believe his opinion. =A0I do not find it persuasive.

> >
> > >>>> I wrote MY article BEFORE his.
> > >>>> Tell me what you did not believe.
> >
> > >>>>> . So why
> > >>>>>> did you say that only one copy was authentic?
> >

> > >>>>> Never said any of them was authentic. =A0That is YOUR wacky

> > >>>>> theory.
> >
> > >>>>> Which copies do you think
> > >>>>>> were not authentic? I guess you could mean the bootleg black and

> > >>>>>> w=

> hite
> > >>>>>> copies we used to pass around. Who analyzed those for serious

> > >>>>>> rese=
> arch?
> > >>>>>> Lifton?
> >
> > >>>>> What are you running on about? =A0You are just making things up.

> >
> > >>>> Then why don't you just come right out and admit that you are an
> > >>>> alterationist?
> >
> > >>> Why do you try to pidgeonhole people in your fake categories?
> >
> > >> Why are you embarrassed to admit what you are?
> >
> > > Why are we not allowed to ask questions about the evidence without?

> > > Wha=

> t
> > > can possibly be so dangerous about that?
> >
> > >>>> Do you believe all the evidence is fake?
> > >>>> I have not seen you refute anything in my articles.
> >

> > >>> Nonsense. =A0You just don't like it that I question the evidence.

> > >>> Somebody needs to.
> >
> > >> I repeat, you have not refuted anything I have written.
> >

> > > Who cares what you have written? =A0If you keep your blinders firmly

> > > in place, what value will it have?
> >
> > A lot of people care because I proved that the Zapruder film is
> > authentic.
>
> Really? Certainly not to my satisfaction.
>
> >Then you come along and say it is fake.
>
> I dare to ask questions. Are you unable to do the same?
>
> > But you can't refute
> > any points in my article.
>
> As I have said, my focus is not 'your article'. Besides, even you
> will agree it was written a long time ago.
> >

> > >>> Your articles are not where my focus is at this time. =A0If you
> > >>> reall=

> y
> > >>> believed them wouldn't you would argue coherently rather than

> > >>> becomin=

> g
> > >>> negative?
> >
> > >> I am negative when people are making up crap.
> >
> > > Yet you make up crap when you demand we accept evidence as valid just
> > > because the WCR does.
> >
> > Never.
> > Don't try to create enemies to make yourself look like the hero.
>
> What are you trying to say? What is the difference between a LNT who
> refuses to question the evidence and a CT who refuses to question the
> evidence?
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >>> You are trying to defend a version of the Z-film as 'authentic'

> > >>> that you know has been altered. =A0What category does that put you

> > >>> in?
> >
> > >> Libelous. I do not know it has been altered. I know it has been

> > >> damage=

> d.
> > >> Not the same thing.
> >

> > > Yes it is. =A0That is alteration. =A0The film was changed. =A0And you
> > > p=
> retend it
> > > was not. =A0Why?

> >
> > Changed? Yeah, they changed the reel also. Ergo to you proof of
> > alteration. You are redefining the terms after you lost the argument.
>
> You are in denial. You accept the excuse that the film was accidentially
> 'damaged' without exploring the possibility that it was done with intent.
> And then you claim it is pristine.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >>> You call on Zavada's appeal to authority without bothering to
> > >>> provide the proper orientation -- he was a Kodak employee; he was
> > >>> not objective.
> >
> > >> My article was before Zavada's. He has a legitimate appeal to

> > >> authorit=

> y,
> > >> because he IS the leading authority on 8 mm home movies.
> > >> Kodak had no vested interest in proving the film authentic. All they

> > >> d=

> id
> > >> was make the filmstock.
> >

> > > I don't care. =A0He was in no position to be objective. =A0Your
> > > perspec=
> tive is
> > > too narrow. =A0If you really believed what you wrote you would be
> > > able =

> to
> > > discuss it rationally.
> >
> > If the leading expert can not be objective, then who can? A janitor who
> > knows nothing about film?
>
> Another appeal to authority. Shall I give you a WC defender analogy? If
> you can't believe the Chief Justice of the USA, whom can you believe?"
>
> Get real, Anthony.
>
> Pamela Brown
> www.in-broad-daylight.com

have you forgotten Ramsey Clark and, John Mitchell? ? ?

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[bigdog]

On Oct 4, 9:41 am, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>
> have you forgotten Ramsey Clark and, John Mitchell? ? ?
>

Who are two former Attorneys General of the United States.

What do I win?

[ss679x]

I did. Apparently that fact upsets your neat little apple cart.

>
> > have to ask questions about everything connected to them, because I know
> > for certain that at the very least the vague statements made about
> > security are completely false.  The version I saw did not have 'the blob',
> > so I also have to question why there seems to be a discrepancy between
> > that one and the one(s) on MPI.
>
> > If you read the Zavada report, part two, you will also find that one of
> > the first-gen copies went missing right after the assassination. It
>
> Where does it say went missing? Quote please. LIFE bought it.

And then what? Are you really unaware of this?

>
> > supposedly ended up in the hands of Time/Life.  Could a copy of that that
> > have been the version I saw?  Could copies of that have been the version
> > that ended up in safes in the T/L executives homes in Greenwich Ct soon
>
> No, because you didn't see the Zapruder film in 1964.

I did. Why is that so tough for you to understand? How can that
undermine your theory?

>Could extra copies
> have been made and given to top executives? Sure, so what?

Indeed they were. Whatever assumptions you are trying to accept about
any provenance connected to the Z-film(s) are false. That's all.

>
> > after the assassination?>  >  >  >  >  >  >>>>>>  But you can't refute>  >>>>>>
> > any points in my article.>  >  >>>>>  As I have said, my focus is not 'your
> > article'.  Besides, even yo= u>  >>>>>  will agree it was written a long
> > time ago.>  >  >>>>  Ok then, attack the Zavada article point by point.>  >
> >>>> Why should I do that when I have already made it clear your article i=
> > s>  >>>  not my focus?>  >  >>  If you can't refute anything in my article,
> > then try Zavada's article.>  >  >>>  But here are a few very general
> > questions.>  >  >>>  Where in your article do you define the lack of
> > provenance of the Z->  >>>  film(s) and, nevertheless, demonstrate that
> > this copy is to your thin=ing>  >>>  'authentic'?>  >  >>  Not relevant.
> > Even if the film were stolen it does not affect if it wa=>  >>  authentic
> > or not. I repeat: The film proves itself authentic.>  >  >  That is circular
> > reasoning.  Authentic to what?  Which part of the = film?>  >
> > Authentic as specified by the ARRB before they could recommend to the>
> > National Archives that they pay $16M for an ORGINAL film.
>
> > Agreed that was the objective in hiring Zavada to scope the film(s).
>
> >> Not altered.
> >> Damaged yes.
>
> > Changed.  Altered.  Call it what you want.  Not the same. Could have
> > been with intent.  The govt didn't care.  I do.
>
> Damaged accidentally is not altered intentionally.

Provide evidence that it was not damaged intentionally. You cannot.

>
>
>
> >> Should they have gotten a discount for the damage like when
> >> you guy a refrigerator with a scratch on it? Yes. 60% off.
>
> > Ironically, the appeal to authority regarding Zavada that you like to
> > throw out apparently had no effect on Doug Horne of the ARRB, as he
> > has gone off on a tangent in the other direction.
>
> Doug Horne is not a reliable source. He is a Liftonite.

You pick and choose your appeals to authority. Horne was a member of
the ARRB. He was not persuaded by Zavada's shell game. Neither am I.

[Anthony Marsh]

I am not impressed by mysterious questions.
If you have a claim to make, spit it out.

>>
>>> supposedly ended up in the hands of Time/Life. Could a copy of that that
>>> have been the version I saw? Could copies of that have been the version
>>> that ended up in safes in the T/L executives homes in Greenwich Ct soon
>>
>> No, because you didn't see the Zapruder film in 1964.
>
> I did. Why is that so tough for you to understand? How can that
> undermine your theory?
>

No, you didn't.

>> Could extra copies
>> have been made and given to top executives? Sure, so what?
>
> Indeed they were. Whatever assumptions you are trying to accept about
> any provenance connected to the Z-film(s) are false. That's all.
>

Copies have nothing to do with the authenticity of the original. We used
to sell black and white bootleg copies.

>>
>>> after the assassination?> > > > > > >>>>>> But you can't refute> >>>>>>
>>> any points in my article.> > >>>>> As I have said, my focus is not 'your
>>> article'. Besides, even yo= u> >>>>> will agree it was written a long
>>> time ago.> > >>>> Ok then, attack the Zavada article point by point.> >
>>>>>> Why should I do that when I have already made it clear your article i=
>>> s> >>> not my focus?> > >> If you can't refute anything in my article,
>>> then try Zavada's article.> > >>> But here are a few very general
>>> questions.> > >>> Where in your article do you define the lack of
>>> provenance of the Z-> >>> film(s) and, nevertheless, demonstrate that
>>> this copy is to your thin=ing> >>> 'authentic'?> > >> Not relevant.
>>> Even if the film were stolen it does not affect if it wa=> >> authentic
>>> or not. I repeat: The film proves itself authentic.> > > That is circular
>>> reasoning. Authentic to what? Which part of the = film?> >
>>> Authentic as specified by the ARRB before they could recommend to the>
>>> National Archives that they pay $16M for an ORGINAL film.
>>
>>> Agreed that was the objective in hiring Zavada to scope the film(s).
>>
>>>> Not altered.
>>>> Damaged yes.
>>
>>> Changed. Altered. Call it what you want. Not the same. Could have
>>> been with intent. The govt didn't care. I do.
>>
>> Damaged accidentally is not altered intentionally.
>
> Provide evidence that it was not damaged intentionally. You cannot.

Silly. The burden of proof is not on me.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Should they have gotten a discount for the damage like when
>>>> you guy a refrigerator with a scratch on it? Yes. 60% off.
>>
>>> Ironically, the appeal to authority regarding Zavada that you like to
>>> throw out apparently had no effect on Doug Horne of the ARRB, as he
>>> has gone off on a tangent in the other direction.
>>
>> Doug Horne is not a reliable source. He is a Liftonite.
>
> You pick and choose your appeals to authority. Horne was a member of
> the ARRB. He was not persuaded by Zavada's shell game. Neither am I.
>

Horne was not a reliable source. He is a Liftonite.
You could just as easily cite Groden as an expert since he also worked
for the HSCA.

[ss679x]

> If you have a claim to make spit it out.

Have I published an article on the Z-film(s) and claimed I 'proved'
they were authentic?
Is researching one's subject matter not a part of such an endeavor?

>
>
>
> >>> supposedly ended up in the hands of Time/Life.  Could a copy of that that
> >>> have been the version I saw?  Could copies of that have been the version
> >>> that ended up in safes in the T/L executives homes in Greenwich Ct soon
>
> >> No, because you didn't see the Zapruder film in 1964.
>
> > I did.  Why is that so tough for you to understand?  How can that
> > undermine your theory?
>
> No, you didn't.

Yes, I did, your silly response notwithstanding. Why do you think I am
so committed to questioning the evidence?.

>
> >> Could extra copies
> >> have been made and given to top executives? Sure, so what?
>
> > Indeed they were.  Whatever assumptions you are trying to accept about
> > any provenance connected to the Z-film(s) are false.  That's all.
>
> Copies have nothing to do with the authenticity of the original.

You have already demonstrated that you have no interest in the Z-
film(s) other than to claim you proved one 'authentic'.

You believe that one of the films is 'the original'; but who in their
right might would treat an original in a shabby manner, by burning and
destroying frames and then splicing it?

> We used
> to sell black and white bootleg copies.

Which version? Did it have 'the blob'?

>
>
>
> >>> after the assassination?>    >    >    >    >    >    >>>>>>    But you can't refute>    >>>>>>
> >>> any points in my article.>    >    >>>>>    As I have said, my focus is not 'your
> >>> article'.  Besides, even yo= u>    >>>>>    will agree it was written a long
> >>> time ago.>    >    >>>>    Ok then, attack the Zavada article point by point.>    >
> >>>>>> Why should I do that when I have already made it clear your article i=
> >>> s>    >>>    not my focus?>    >    >>    If you can't refute anything in my article,
> >>> then try Zavada's article.>    >    >>>    But here are a few very general
> >>> questions.>    >    >>>    Where in your article do you define the lack of
> >>> provenance of the Z->    >>>    film(s) and, nevertheless, demonstrate that
> >>> this copy is to your thin=ing>    >>>    'authentic'?>    >    >>    Not relevant.
> >>> Even if the film were stolen it does not affect if it wa=>    >>    authentic
> >>> or not. I repeat: The film proves itself authentic.>    >    >    That is circular
> >>> reasoning.  Authentic to what?  Which part of the = film?>    >
> >>> Authentic as specified by the ARRB before they could recommend to the>
> >>> National Archives that they pay $16M for an ORGINAL film.
>
> >>> Agreed that was the objective in hiring Zavada to scope the film(s).
>
> >>>> Not altered.
> >>>> Damaged yes.
>
> >>> Changed.  Altered.  Call it what you want.  Not the same. Could have
> >>> been with intent.  The govt didn't care.  I do.
>
> >> Damaged accidentally is not altered intentionally.
>
> > Provide evidence that it was not damaged intentionally.  You cannot.
>
> Silly. The burden of proof is not on me.

You are the one who has published an article claiming you have
'proved' one film authentic, are you not?
Or is that a silly question?[...]

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

[Anthony Marsh]

You seem to have some point you are dancing around. Just spit it out.
What is your wacky theory?

>>
>>
>>
>>>>> supposedly ended up in the hands of Time/Life. Could a copy of that that
>>>>> have been the version I saw? Could copies of that have been the version
>>>>> that ended up in safes in the T/L executives homes in Greenwich Ct soon
>>
>>>> No, because you didn't see the Zapruder film in 1964.
>>
>>> I did. Why is that so tough for you to understand? How can that
>>> undermine your theory?
>>
>> No, you didn't.
>
> Yes, I did, your silly response notwithstanding. Why do you think I am
> so committed to questioning the evidence?.
>

Nothing wrong with questioning the evidence.
But you did not see the Zapruder film in 1964.

>>
>>>> Could extra copies
>>>> have been made and given to top executives? Sure, so what?
>>
>>> Indeed they were. Whatever assumptions you are trying to accept about
>>> any provenance connected to the Z-film(s) are false. That's all.
>>
>> Copies have nothing to do with the authenticity of the original.
>
> You have already demonstrated that you have no interest in the Z-
> film(s) other than to claim you proved one 'authentic'.
>

There are many interesting details and clues in the Zapruder film. I am
currently trying to synch the Zapruder film with the Dorman film by
tracking Rosemary. But Gary Mack is hindering research by withholding the
Dorman film.

> You believe that one of the films is 'the original'; but who in their
> right might would treat an original in a shabby manner, by burning and
> destroying frames and then splicing it?
>

And who said buring and destroying frames? Obviously you've never
projected 8 mm film and you don't know how easy it is for the film to get
torn. The reason why I had those example frames was because my aunt's job
was to repair home movies that had gotten mangled in projectors.

>> We used
>> to sell black and white bootleg copies.
>
> Which version? Did it have 'the blob'?
>

What do you mean which version? This was the bootleg copy.
The blob would not appear red. This was black and white.

That had absolutely nothing to do with alteration. The film could be
altered and then damaged during viewing.
You need alteration to be instantaneous since several people saw it
within hours.

> Pamela Brown
> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>

[ss679x]

You don't know that. You haven't demonstrated that. Why try to push your
opinion?

The film could be
> altered and then damaged during viewing.

Really? Who in their right mind damages a film during viewing if they
know what they are doing; especially not an in-camera original of this
historic film?

Isn't that what the copies were for? There is no benign explanation for
the burning and splicing of this film.

> You need alteration to be instantaneous since several people saw it
> within hours.

Saw what?

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com