Conspiracy sidelines limo queen
Dave Reitzes
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------------------
Pamela McElwain-...
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Yesterday, 10:32 PM Post #28
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 382
Joined: 18-May 04
From: Minneapolis, MN USA
Member No.: 725
QUOTE(Pamela McElwain-Brown @ Aug 22 2008, 07:55 PM)
QUOTE(Duke Lane @ Aug 22 2008, 09:57 AM)
QUOTE(Pamela McElwain-Brown @ Aug
22 2008, 12:03 AM)
What article? What 'show'? What color
is the sky in
your world?
Ouch! That was unnecessary.
I'd have to guess that I was talking about
the article you provided a link to the
article "Replica JFK Limo comes to State
Fair" in the Eden Prairie [i]News online.
The show, I'm thinking, is the one referred
to at the end of the article, in the sentence
reading "McElwain-Brown was also interviewed
at the Henry Ford Museum for an upcoming
Discovery Channel program set to air on
Nov. 4."
The sky is yellow and the sun is blue. Roy
Kellerman is portrayed by a Dallas-area
researcher.
Your speculations are way off. The program consists
of a few different things, such as an interview with
David Talbot wo wrote BROTHERS, and footage of the limo
(using the replica limo) of Dealey Plaza, Love Field,
Parkland and the White House Garage (simulated to look
like). They will be following the timeline of the
assassination. In addition, there is an experiment
regarding the firing of Z-313 from, I think, two
different locations. Then there are other interviews,
including me as myself and Bob Casey, curator or Henry
Ford Museum, done at Dearborn in front of the rebuilt
limo. Nobody will be portraying any historical figures.
Of course, they are also trotting out Gary Mack, who has
had some say in the program itself, so we'll have to see
just what the slant and conclusions end up being. I am
hopeful that there will be objectivity, but have my
reservations.
Seems that my posts are being monitored. Apparently this one caught
the eye of someone who reported back to the DC. As a result I was
rebuked by RE, producer of the show. I have also been recently cut
loose, for reasons of 'time'.
These facts, coupled with the press release for the finished show,
which describes only a shot from the TSBD, are beginning to give a
clear indication as to the actual reason for doing the show in the
first place.
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------------------
Dave
pjfk
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13350&st=15&sta...
"Sidelined"? No. Plan B, yes.
Dave Reitzes
Dave
pjfk
The producer told me someone 'reported' me for posting to the Ed
Forum. My guess would be Gary Mack who lurks there. Who else would
you suggest?
Dave Reitzes
I wouldn't think you -- or any other amateur researcher -- would be
important enough for anyone to "monitor."
Speaking of Gary Mack, you seem to believe he wields some kind of
sinister power over the media. I notice that on November 4 you wrote:
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------------------
Another factor is Gary Mack -- he sits in the TSBD/6th Floor Museum
with a purpose of maintaining the ongoing cover-up. That is his job.
He controls to a big extent the programs that are produced.
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------------------
What evidence do you have to justify these statements?
Dave
pjfk
As usual, Dave, you seem to be making accusations without having all
of the facts.
Apparently I am important enough to be monitored, as that is what
occurred. That may be why I was dropped from the show. Apparently,
this is not the kind of show that is open to discussion. The audience
is supposed to be told what to think -- kinda like the WCR, don't you
think?
As far as my statements about Gary Mack sitting in the center of the
media productions goes, I am speaking from personal experience. Gary
has referred people to me. As a result, I was involved in the 2003
FoxNews 2-hour conspiracy-based program, as well as another that
didn't get off the ground. I spoke with Robert E. at that time, but
his program went off in another direction, culminating, I think in the
first Unsolved History program on the magic bullet. So my involvement
in the new program was indirectly at the request of Gary Mack, who by
now, may have come to the realization that he cannot consider me a
'safe' CT (they're the ones who don't make waves).
As far as my statement about Gary Mack's maintaining the ongoing
coverup, I say that again, based on my experience with the manner in
which this program developed, and then seemed to be hijacked, as well
as his involvement in other programs I have done, such as the SPEED
Channel documentary in 2004. Can a program even be made without his
involvement? His tentacles are everywhere. And why would he not put
forth the party line? Would anyone connected to the TSBD/6th FM
actually be allowed not to tow the party line? Really?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Dave Reitzes
What accusations?
> Apparently I am important enough to be monitored, as that is what
> occurred.
According to you, I suppose.
That may be why I was dropped from the show. �Apparently,
> this is not the kind of show that is open to discussion. �The audience
> is supposed to be told what to think -- kinda like the WCR, don't you
> think?
I haven't seen the show. And, no, I don't recall the Warren Commission
telling anyone what to think. Could you supply a citation?
> As far as my statements about Gary Mack sitting in the center of the
> media productions goes, I am speaking from personal experience. �Gary
> has referred people to me. �As a result, I was involved in the 2003
> FoxNews 2-hour conspiracy-based program, as well as another that
> didn't get off the ground. �I spoke with Robert E. at that time, but
> his program went off in another direction, culminating, I think in the
> first Unsolved History program on the magic bullet. �So my involvement
> in the new program was indirectly at the request of Gary Mack, who by
> now, may have come to the realization that he cannot consider me a
> 'safe' CT (they're the ones who don't make waves).
>
> As far as my statement about Gary Mack's maintaining the ongoing
> coverup, I say that again, based on my experience with the manner in
> which this program developed, and then seemed to be hijacked, as well
> as his involvement in other programs I have done, such as the SPEED
> Channel documentary in 2004. �Can a program even be made without his
> involvement? His tentacles are everywhere. �And why would he not put
> forth the party line? �Would anyone connected to the TSBD/6th FM
> actually be allowed not to tow the party line? �Really?
So you're merely stating your opinions and pretending they are facts?
Is that responsible?
Dave
ss6...@gmail.com
Dave hasn't apparently read the press release for the show.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, their mandate was that "the public must be satisfied" that Oswald
was the lone nut assassin.
Anthony Marsh
So, in your perfect world the government never monitors anybody?
> Speaking of Gary Mack, you seem to believe he wields some kind of
> sinister power over the media. I notice that on November 4 you wrote:
>
Yes, he does. As curator of the Sixth Floor Museum. Writers and producers
have to go to him for access to the TSBD and some of the evidence.
ss6...@gmail.com
Indeed. Quite a high bar for a tv show. Perhaps they forget that
extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Or the adage that whom
the gods would destroy they first make proud. :-0
Dave Reitzes
Why must you always change the subject, Pam?
You're supposed to be the CT that the establishment's afraid of,
right?
Why on Earth would anyone be afraid of someone who can't even frame an
argument?
Dave
ss6...@gmail.com
Not too comfortable, are you Dave?
Dave Reitzes
I don't know what that means, I'm afraid. But . . .
ss6...@gmail.com
You seem unsettled at the thought that readers can actually discern
propaganda from truth. Perhaps that's because you have a high estimate of
yourself as someone who is able to put the stuff out there without anyone
knowing it for what it is.
The sniff test is generally the best -- when something starts to reek, you
know.
Dave Reitzes
On the contrary, I've asked numeous times for you to prove that you
yourself can demontstrate the existence of propaganda at my website,
and you decline my invitation every time.
Perhaps that's because you have a high estimate of
> yourself as someone who is able to put the stuff out there without anyone
> knowing it for what it is.
>
> The sniff test is generally the best -- when something starts to reek, you
> know.
IOW, Pam can't support her wild conjecture in any way, shape, or form.
Is anyone surprised?
Dave
John Fiorentino
know."
You mean like right now?
John F.
<ss6...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec80dfd6-7803-4e77...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***It seems to me that the curator of a museum would be the person one
would have to obtain permission from to gain access to artifacts at a
museum.
>
> > <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------------------
>
> > Another factor is Gary Mack -- he sits in the TSBD/6th Floor Museum
> > with a purpose of maintaining the ongoing cover-up. That is his job.
> > He controls to a big extent the programs that are produced.
>
> > <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------------------
>
> > What evidence do you have to justify these statements?
>
> > Dave- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ss6...@gmail.com
wrote:
> ".........when something starts to reek, you
> know."
>
> You mean like right now?
I mean, like when one is reading some of Dave R's propaganda at his site,
and one starts to think of a stinky, smelly, runny Brie...
Dave Reitzes
> On Nov 16, 6:43 pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
> > ".........when something starts to reek, you
> > know."
>
> > You mean like right now?
>
> I mean, like when one is reading some of Dave R's propaganda at his site,
> and one starts to think of a stinky, smelly, runny Brie...
You keep saying things like this, Pam, but you can never back it up
with any facts.
Why, it's almost as if you were just, oh, I dunno, making it all up
out of thin air.
Hmmmm. \:^)
Dave
John Fiorentino
Well, I did think I smelled that to, but it had nothing to do with Dave.
John F.
<ss6...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b41650d5-0b39-4dad...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
Why do you only apply that standard to others, not to Judyth.... nor
to yourself? Perhaps it is you who forgets.
Barb :-)
ss6...@gmail.com
>
> read more »
I would have to rewrite your webpage in an objective format in order
to make it clear enough for you to understand, and I really don't have
time for that today.
Dave Reitzes
An update from Pam:
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------------------
Pamela McElwain-...
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Yesterday, 11:42 PM Post #28
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 416
Joined: 18-May 04
From: Minneapolis, MN USA
Member No.: 725
It seems Gary Mack has a public persona which can be very nice and
helpful -- and, indeed, that is his job as curator of 6FM. But there
is also the off-hours Gary who lurkes at the newsgroups such as this
one and aaj and has other people post for him, as though that gives
his posts more authority, and who misunderstands issues and evidence
about the assassination and seems to have a bullying attitude, where
he tries to pressure those who don't agree with him.
<QUOTE OFF>--------------------------------------------------
So, according to Pamela, the facts about Gary Mack's job description
are these:
"Another factor is Gary Mack -- he sits in the TSBD/6th Floor Museum
with a purpose of maintaining the ongoing cover-up. That is his job."
"It seems Gary Mack has a public persona which can be very nice and
helpful -- and, indeed, that is his job as curator of 6FM."
Dave
Dave Reitzes
Well?
> > Apparently I am important enough to be monitored, as that is what
> > occurred.
>
> According to you, I suppose.
>
> That may be why I was dropped from the show. Apparently,
>
> > this is not the kind of show that is open to discussion. The audience
> > is supposed to be told what to think -- kinda like the WCR, don't you
> > think?
>
> I haven't seen the show.
Now that I have seen the show, it turns out that your description
could hardly be less accurate.
And, no, I don't recall the Warren Commission
> telling anyone what to think. Could you supply a citation?
I didn't think so.
> > As far as my statements about Gary Mack sitting in the center of the
> > media productions goes, I am speaking from personal experience. Gary
> > has referred people to me. As a result, I was involved in the 2003
> > FoxNews 2-hour conspiracy-based program, as well as another that
> > didn't get off the ground. I spoke with Robert E. at that time, but
> > his program went off in another direction, culminating, I think in the
> > first Unsolved History program on the magic bullet. So my involvement
> > in the new program was indirectly at the request of Gary Mack, who by
> > now, may have come to the realization that he cannot consider me a
> > 'safe' CT (they're the ones who don't make waves).
>
> > As far as my statement about Gary Mack's maintaining the ongoing
> > coverup, I say that again, based on my experience with the manner in
> > which this program developed, and then seemed to be hijacked, as well
> > as his involvement in other programs I have done, such as the SPEED
> > Channel documentary in 2004. Can a program even be made without his
> > involvement? His tentacles are everywhere. And why would he not put
> > forth the party line? Would anyone connected to the TSBD/6th FM
> > actually be allowed not to tow the party line? Really?
>
> So you're merely stating your opinions and pretending they are facts?
>
> Is that responsible?
>
> Dave
Your silence says it all.
But keep on attacking real investigators like Gary Mack if it makes
you happy. It doesn't appear you're fooling anyone.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
> On Nov 17, 4:39�pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > I mean, like when one is reading some of Dave R's propaganda at his site,
> > > and one starts to think of a stinky, smelly, runny Brie...
>
> > You keep saying things like this, Pam, but you can never back it up
> > with any facts.
>
> > Why, it's almost as if you were just, oh, I dunno, making it all up
> > out of thin air.
>
> > Hmmmm. �\:^)
>
> to make it clear enough for you to understand, and I really don't have
> time for that today.
So the self-proclaimed dangerous conspiracy theorist, the one who
'makes waves,' can't back up a word she says.
Surprise, surprise. \:^)
Lurkers and newcomers, please check out my website for feature
articles, book reviews, documents, and loads of useful links:
Dave
ss6...@gmail.com
According to the producer.
>
> That may be why I was dropped from the show. Apparently,
>
> > this is not the kind of show that is open to discussion. The audience
> > is supposed to be told what to think -- kinda like the WCR, don't you
> > think?
>
> I haven't seen the show. And, no, I don't recall the Warren Commission
> telling anyone what to think. Could you supply a citation?
Let's focus, Dave. The WCR begins and ends with the premise that WCR
acted alone. What room for discussion do you see there?
>
>
>
> > As far as my statements about Gary Mack sitting in the center of the
> > media productions goes, I am speaking from personal experience. Gary
> > has referred people to me. As a result, I was involved in the 2003
> > FoxNews 2-hour conspiracy-based program, as well as another that
> > didn't get off the ground. I spoke with Robert E. at that time, but
> > his program went off in another direction, culminating, I think in the
> > first Unsolved History program on the magic bullet. So my involvement
> > in the new program was indirectly at the request of Gary Mack, who by
> > now, may have come to the realization that he cannot consider me a
> > 'safe' CT (they're the ones who don't make waves).
>
> > As far as my statement about Gary Mack's maintaining the ongoing
> > coverup, I say that again, based on my experience with the manner in
> > which this program developed, and then seemed to be hijacked, as well
> > as his involvement in other programs I have done, such as the SPEED
> > Channel documentary in 2004. Can a program even be made without his
> > involvement? His tentacles are everywhere. And why would he not put
> > forth the party line? Would anyone connected to the TSBD/6th FM
> > actually be allowed not to tow the party line? Really?
>
> So you're merely stating your opinions and pretending they are facts?
I'm speaking from experience and observation. Take it or leave it.
ss6...@gmail.com
It also appears to be his job to schmooze with the safe and naive CTs and
then use their trust to get them to post for him on forums and thereby
have influence on the forums at which he. The Ed Forum seems to be his
current bete noir.
What better way to destroy an adversary than from within? And if you
wonder how disparaging GM is about CTs you only need to listen to the
things repeated by those acquainted with him. He intended this show to
destroy the CT community with a 'surprise' of gigantic proportions. If
you want to remain naive, your choice.
jfk...@gmail.com
Actually, I'm thinking more of doing a propaganda page on you; that might
make discernment in that area a little easier for you. Basically, though,
propaganda is the equivalent of listening only to either the Republicans
or the Democrats. Everything is slanted according to an agenda. The
truth may lie elsewhere. Does that help?
Dave Reitzes
> On Nov 21, 8:54�pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 20, 11:47 pm, ss6...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 17, 4:39 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > I mean, like when one is reading some of Dave R's propaganda at his site,
> > > > > and one starts to think of a stinky, smelly, runny Brie...
>
> > > > You keep saying things like this, Pam, but you can never back it up
> > > > with any facts.
>
> > > > Why, it's almost as if you were just, oh, I dunno, making it all up
> > > > out of thin air.
>
> > > > Hmmmm. \:^)
>
> > > I would have to rewrite your webpage in an objective format in order
> > > to make it clear enough for you to understand, and I really don't have
> > > time for that today.
>
> > So the self-proclaimed dangerous conspiracy theorist, the one who
> > 'makes waves,' can't back up a word she says.
>
> > Surprise, surprise. �\:^)
>
> > Lurkers and newcomers, please check out my website for feature
> > articles, book reviews, documents, and loads of useful links:
>
> >http://www.jfk-online.com
>
> > Dave
>
> Actually, I'm thinking more of doing a propaganda page on you;
Oh, that'll make waves, all right! Sure beats research. \:^)
But at least you're up-front about your intentions, I suppose: Pam the
Self-Proclaimed Propagandist!
that might
> make discernment in that area a little easier for you. Basically, though,
> propaganda is the equivalent of listening only to either the Republicans
> or the Democrats. �Everything is slanted according to an agenda. �The
> truth may lie elsewhere. �Does that help?
I'm afraid not. Facts are facts, and conclusions are either well
supported or they aren't.
If my website were really a work of propaganda, replete with errors of
fact and/or poorly supported conclusions, you would relish tearing it
to pieces, wouldn't you? But you can't; in fact, you can't seem to
find anything wrong with it at all.
You just don't like it, because it debunks many of the fantasies you
choose to believe.
Lurkers, check it out for yourself:
Dave
Dave Reitzes
That's what I thought. As Stephen Colbert would say, I accept your
apology. \:^)
> > > Apparently I am important enough to be monitored, as that is what
> > > occurred.
>
> > According to you, I suppose.
>
> According to the producer.
No, according to your earlier post, someone merely commented about one or
more of your posts; there's nothing whatsoever about anyone systematically
monitoring you. That seems to be a bizarre assumption of yours. Do you
have any evidence to the contrary?
> > That may be why I was dropped from the show. Apparently,
You were told that your contribution was dropped for lack of time in the
broadcast, right? Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Do you have
any particular reason to believe your contribution was indispensable?
> > > this is not the kind of show that is open to discussion. The audience
> > > is supposed to be told what to think -- kinda like the WCR, don't you
> > > think?
>
> > I haven't seen the show. And, no, I don't recall the Warren Commission
> > telling anyone what to think. Could you supply a citation?
>
> Let's focus, Dave. �The WCR begins and ends with the premise that WCR
> acted alone. �What room for discussion do you see there?
In what respect does it differ from any other nonfiction work that
presents a thesis and supports that thesis with evidence?
Be specific and cite your sources.
> > > As far as my statements about Gary Mack sitting in the center of the
> > > media productions goes, I am speaking from personal experience. Gary
> > > has referred people to me. As a result, I was involved in the 2003
> > > FoxNews 2-hour conspiracy-based program, as well as another that
> > > didn't get off the ground. I spoke with Robert E. at that time, but
> > > his program went off in another direction, culminating, I think in the
> > > first Unsolved History program on the magic bullet. So my involvement
> > > in the new program was indirectly at the request of Gary Mack, who by
> > > now, may have come to the realization that he cannot consider me a
> > > 'safe' CT (they're the ones who don't make waves).
>
> > > As far as my statement about Gary Mack's maintaining the ongoing
> > > coverup, I say that again, based on my experience with the manner in
> > > which this program developed, and then seemed to be hijacked, as well
> > > as his involvement in other programs I have done, such as the SPEED
> > > Channel documentary in 2004. Can a program even be made without his
> > > involvement? His tentacles are everywhere. And why would he not put
> > > forth the party line? Would anyone connected to the TSBD/6th FM
> > > actually be allowed not to tow the party line? Really?
>
> > So you're merely stating your opinions and pretending they are facts?
>
> I'm speaking from experience and observation. �Take it or leave it.
If you can't back up your claims with evidence, reasonable people will
have to assume that your allegations are, at best, unsubstantiated.
Could it be that's why you're less than successful at selling yourself as
some kind of expert?
Dave
Dave Reitzes
I've had a handful of newsgroup and e-mail exchanges with him, and I know
dozens of people who are acquainted with him. Why don't you tell us what
he's specifically said that provokes your attacks?
He intended this show to
> destroy the CT community with a 'surprise' of gigantic proportions. �
That's quite a bizarre thing to say, Pam. You must have some dynamite
evidence to support it, right?
How on Earth could any television show possibly "destroy the CT
community," anyway? How dumb do you think CTs are?
If
> you want to remain naive, your choice.
I could use some clarification here, Pam. In the past you've accused me of
being both a "troll" and a purveyor of "propanganda" -- although you've
repeatedly refused to support such claims. Now you say I'm simply naive.
You also stated quite recently that it's fairly easy to recognize
propaganda. That would imply that you would be unlikely to confuse a work
of propaganda with the product of mere naivete.
Could you please reconcile these statements?
Meanwhile, may I point out that you've yet to produce any documentation
for any of your numerous attacks against Gary Mack?
Do you really think it's responsible for you to behave this way, Pam?
Dave
jfk...@gmail.com
Reitzes has reposted an article from the Ed Forum. That might tell us
something. Has he *tasked* himself with trying to get someone to *engage*
in a discussion on this slanted field?
Dave Reitzes
Or are you just evading the subject and making things up . . . as
usual?
Dave
jfk...@gmail.com
Reitzes is uncomfortable debating on an open forum, so has pulled this
post over to the aaj slanted field. Notice that he is fishing for
information; perhaps because something has rattled his composure?
Dave Reitzes
As always, Pam, your imagination remains vivid, if not exactly
compelling.
You've made it clear you can't support anything you say with actual
facts. Keep extending this thread if you like, though.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>
> > On Nov 20, 11:47 pm, ss6...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 17, 4:39 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > I mean, like when one is reading some of Dave R's propaganda at his site,
> > > > > and one starts to think of a stinky, smelly, runny Brie...
>
> > > > You keep saying things like this, Pam, but you can never back it up
> > > > with any facts.
>
> > > > Why, it's almost as if you were just, oh, I dunno, making it all up
> > > > out of thin air.
>
> > > > Hmmmm. \:^)
>
> > > I would have to rewrite your webpage in an objective format in order
> > > to make it clear enough for you to understand, and I really don't have
> > > time for that today.
>
> > So the self-proclaimed dangerous conspiracy theorist, the one who
> > 'makes waves,' can't back up a word she says.
>
> > Surprise, surprise. �\:^)
>
> > Lurkers and newcomers, please check out my website for feature
> > articles, book reviews, documents, and loads of useful links:
> Actually, I'm thinking more of doing a propaganda page on you; that might
> make discernment in that area a little easier for you.
Can I get an ETA on your propaganda page, Pam? I'm really looking
forward to it.
Please try to spell my name correctly. \:^)
Dave
Dave Reitzes
Okay, if not, how about some flimsy evidence?
Throw us all a bone, Pam!
> How on Earth could any television show possibly "destroy the CT
> community," anyway? How dumb do you think CTs are?
Dumb enough, I guess.
> If
>
> > you want to remain naive, your choice.
>
> I could use some clarification here, Pam. In the past you've accused me of
> being both a "troll" and a purveyor of "propanganda" -- although you've
> repeatedly refused to support such claims. Now you say I'm simply naive.
>
> You also stated quite recently that it's fairly easy to recognize
> propaganda. That would imply that you would be unlikely to confuse a work
> of propaganda with the product of mere naivete.
>
> Could you please reconcile these statements?
No? You mean even you yourself are baffled by some of the claims you
make?
> Meanwhile, may I point out that you've yet to produce any documentation
> for any of your numerous attacks against Gary Mack?
>
> Do you really think it's responsible for you to behave this way, Pam?
>
> Dave
Neither do I.
Dave Reitzes
\:^)
Okay, so you concede you have no evidence to support this strange
assumption of yours.
Thank you for the clarification.
> > > That may be why I was dropped from the show. Apparently,
>
> You were told that your contribution was dropped for lack of time in the
> broadcast, right? Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Do you have
> any particular reason to believe your contribution was indispensable?
Okay, that would also be a "no."
Thank you for the clarification.
> > > > this is not the kind of show that is open to discussion. The audience
> > > > is supposed to be told what to think -- kinda like the WCR, don't you
> > > > think?
>
> > > I haven't seen the show. And, no, I don't recall the Warren Commission
> > > telling anyone what to think. Could you supply a citation?
>
> > Let's focus, Dave. The WCR begins and ends with the premise that WCR
> > acted alone. What room for discussion do you see there?
>
> In what respect does it differ from any other nonfiction work that
> presents a thesis and supports that thesis with evidence?
>
> Be specific and cite your sources.
Okay, so you were making that stuff up.
No surprise there.