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.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
I am willing to bet you just made the first revue of the book.....
JB
"...oblivious for a need to reason assassination issues...?"
What issues? You mean like rebutting the 16 Dealey snipers and 22
agencies-involved theory?
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."
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 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?
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?
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
>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.
David...please ... do not saddle all CTs with Pamela-think. Thank you.
:-)
Nor did I say she had. :-)
>
>>
>>>
>>> Pamela Brown
>>> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
Okay, gotta give you that one ... that's funny! (and a more realistic
view besides)
LOL! That's a pretty good point!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
>>
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.
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
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
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