Pamela McElwain-Brown takes the wheel
Dave Reitzes
it oil barons? Steel magnates? "The South"? Israel? The CIA? Well, it sure
wasn't Oswald: he was outside watching the motorcade, hankering for a
Coke.
This is some of what I learned when I picked up a used copy of a rather
bizarre book called CAR CRASH CULTURE (Mikita Brottman, ed., New York:
Palgrave, 2001), which features an article on JFK's limo by our own Pamela
McElwain-Brown. I was curious to see if she could explain some of the
views she's hinted at on the newsgroup.
She alludes to an obsession with the limo (p. 165), calling it a "car of
mystery and a car of destiny." (p. 166) Referring to her initial viewing
of the Zapruder film, she writes, "The first thing I noticed was the
elegant midnight-blue Lincoln Continental limousine, with its stylish
chrome grille, the red parade lights blinking and the presidential and
American flags flapping in the wind." (p. 166)
She describes a memorable week spent at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn,
Michigan, where the rebuilt limo is displayed. The "presence of this
vehicle is remarkable," she observes. "As time went on, I found myself
returning to the car whenever I took a break [from her research, of
course], sitting on a bench next to it, photographing it, and talking to
the people who were drawn to it -- many unaware of its history until they
read the plaque beside it. And they had so many questions. Why had the car
been rebuilt? Had it really been used again? Shouldn't it have been
preserved as evidence? I gradually became aware that the car had an
undeniable presence to it. It was something quite different from the
feeling I had experienced when I insisted on standing in the middle of Elm
Street in Dallas, at the point where -- the government tell us -- the
fatal shot hit." (p. 185)
Elsewhere she asks, "Is it possible to look at the assassination from the
perspective of the car?" (p. 166)
I was hoping that she'd elaborate on her suspicions about the Secret
Service being involved in the assassination, cover-up, or both, but the
article offers little. The Secret Service acted suspiciously in the way
they took possession of the limo, she says (HER limo, one is tempted to
infer), but doesn't really offer up much else. There's a lot of back and
forth on whether the windshield was switched somewhere, although she
ultimately says probably not. (p. 181) She does cite "new witness" Nick
Prencipe, a police officer who said he saw the limo in the White House
Garage, and said there was a hole in the windshield on the passenger side
and no damage near the rearview mirror. Prencipe also claimed that driver
Greer told him that there had been "shots coming from every direction,"
and "one of them came right through the windshield." (p. 173)
The above is stated in the main text of the article, and the footnote is
kind of amusing, as Pamela observes that "Existing documentation so far
places Greer at Bethesda during the autopsy and embalming" at the time
Prencipe claimed to have spoken with him, so "There's a time conflict that
hasn't been resolved." She admits that Greer never said anything even
remotely like this to anyone else, but suggests that "there's a
possibility that Nick has information that Greer didn't feel comfortable
communicating to higher authorities. As a result, research is ongoing in
this area." (p. 188, fn. 15)
What else? Well, she describes the shooting sequence in some detail. The
first shot ("sensed -- if not heard" by the President) misses the limo.
The next shot "tears into his throat." A bullet hits Connally. (She is
surprisingly vague about whether it's the same bullet that hit JFK or
not.) "Another shot hits the President in the back -- the first decoy shot
from a sharpshooter using the faulty Mannlicher-Carcano carbine" in the
sniper's nest. (pp. 168-69) Another shot hits Connally in the wrist and
thigh. A vivid description of the head shot follows ("from the front?" Pam
asks). Another shot hits Main Street near the Triple Underpass, resulting
in Jim Tague's wound.
There are no sources cited for any of this, but it's pretty standard stuff
-- could've come from Robert Groden or even Oliver Stone, for example.
Oswald, we learn, has been watching the motorcade from the front door of
the TSBD, then "ambles casually into the lunchroom to buy a Coke. He's
waiting for a telephone call that never comes." (p. 169)
So who actually committed the crime? Well, Pam doesn't say precisely --
but it may have had something to do with "JFK's desire to end American
involvement in Vietnam, his attempts to negotiate with the Soviet Union,
and personal issues for which the Secret Service men were required to
violate their oaths." (p. 182) Then again, "President Kennedy also managed
to outrage the South because of his views on civil rights. He offended the
oil barons because he moved against the lucrative oil depletion allowance,
the steel magnates because he tried to regulate the price of steel, and
the pro-Israeli faction because he insisted on inspecting the Dimona
nuclear 'power' complex -- which the Israelis insisted was merely for
energy production, but which Kennedy correctly assessed to be the
beginning of Israel's threat as a nuclear power." (p. 182) More likely a
suspect, though, is the CIA. (pp. 182-83)
"Was President Kennedy killed as a result of a conspiracy?" Pam asks.
"Could one person have committed the deed alone? What part did Lee Harvey
Oswald play? The Warren Commission went to a great deal of trouble to
begin and end with one thesis -- that Oswald committed the crime alone.
Lee Harvey Oswald was dead and unable to defend himself. Why would the
government go to such lengths to violate the main axiom of the American
legal system -- that a person is innocent until proven guilty -- unless it
had something to hide?" (p. 183)
Pam does, at least, rule out the possibility of a shot from a storm drain
on the south knoll (p. 182), and she's got an unimpeachable source: Gary
Mack. (p. 190, fn. 42)
Dave \:^)
pjfk
Interesting post Reitzes. Nice of you to dig up CCC. The section of
the chapter "SS-100-X" that you mention references my early viewing of
the Zapruder film in 1964.
The chapter represented my thinking in 2001, and was, in fact, a
combination of two separate essays that I had written; some of the
material I wanted included was too politically incorrect for the
editor -- such as my quoting JFK talking about how history would view
Hitler as a great leader.
The most valuable things about it from my standpoint are that it
discusses Vaughn Ferguson's having been with the limo for four days
after the assassination, and introduced Nick Prencipe's statements
about having been in the WHG with the limo and seen a 'hole' in the
windshield.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Dave Reitzes
How did you divine that Oswald was outside watching the motorcade?
Why was he outside if he was waiting for a phone call?
What do you make of Judyth's claim that Oswald was standing in the
sniper's nest with a rifle?
What evidence would you propose could resolve this apparent conflict?
Dave
Dave Reitzes
> From the Gentle Hints Department:
>
> How did you divine that Oswald was outside watching the motorcade?
Come on, Pamela, I know a serious researcher like you (you were on the
Discovery Channel!) would never just make something like this up out
of thin air.
> Why was he outside if he was waiting for a phone call?
Is this an reasonable question?
> What do you make of Judyth's claim that Oswald was standing in the
> sniper's nest with a rifle?
Surely you have some opinion on the matter.
> What evidence would you propose could resolve this apparent conflict?
>
> Dave
Evidence is important, isn't it? Please advise.
Dave Reitzes
> On Mar 31, 10:57 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > From the Gentle Hints Department:
>
> > How did you divine that Oswald was outside watching the motorcade?
>
> Come on, Pamela, I know a serious researcher like you (you were on the
> Discovery Channel!) would never just make something like this up out
> of thin air.
Would Multiple Choice help? Your source for Oswald standing outside
is:
a) Altgens photo (Oswald in the doorway!)
b) Ouija board
c) Remote viewing
d) You're a "witness" to that, too
> > Why was he outside if he was waiting for a phone call?
Is this an unreasonable question?
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 3, 9:47�am, Dave Reitzes<dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 10:57 am, Dave Reitzes<dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From the Gentle Hints Department:
>>
>>> How did you divine that Oswald was outside watching the motorcade?
>>
>> Come on, Pamela, I know a serious researcher like you (you were on the
>> Discovery Channel!) would never just make something like this up out
>> of thin air.
>
>
> Would Multiple Choice help? Your source for Oswald standing outside
> is:
>
> a) Altgens photo (Oswald in the doorway!)
> b) Ouija board
> c) Remote viewing
> d) You're a "witness" to that, too
>
I guess you forgot to include:
e) Because he said he was.
>
>>> Why was he outside if he was waiting for a phone call?
>
>
> Is this an unreasonable question?
>
>
Is there a phone booth outside the TSBD?
>>> What do you make of Judyth's claim that Oswald was standing in the
>>> sniper's nest with a rifle?
>
>
> Surely you have some opinion on the matter.
>
Surely you have something better to do than cite Judyth.
jfk...@gmail.com
> On 4/5/2010 1:06 PM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 9:47 am, Dave Reitzes<dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 31, 10:57 am, Dave Reitzes<dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>> From the Gentle Hints Department:
>
> >>> How did you divine that Oswald was outside watching the motorcade?
>
> >> Come on, Pamela, I know a serious researcher like you (you were on the
> >> Discovery Channel!) would never just make something like this up out
> >> of thin air.
>
> > Would Multiple Choice help? Your source for Oswald standing outside
> > is:
>
> > a) Altgens photo (Oswald in the doorway!)
> > b) Ouija board
> > c) Remote viewing
> > d) You're a "witness" to that, too
>
> I guess you forgot to include:
>
> e) Because he said he was.
>
>
>
> >>> Why was he outside if he was waiting for a phone call?
>
> > Is this an unreasonable question?
>
> Is there a phone booth outside the TSBD?
Reitzes is just trolling, Anthony.
If you look on page 169 of the copy of CAR CRASH CULTURE I sent you,
you will see, in my essay "SS-100-X" where I say:
"Lee Harvey Oswald, after taking a look at the motorcade from the
front door of the Texas School Book Depository, ambles casually into
the lunchroom to buy a bottle of Coke. He's waiting for a telephone
call that never comes."
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Dave Reitzes
You seem reluctant to cite your sources. Why is that?
Give us all some insight into your "historical research process."
Dave
bigdog
Never mind that there is nothing to support this claim. Can you answer one
question. If Oswald was in the lunchroom, drinking a Coke, waiting for a
phone call, how could Marrion Baker have seen him? How could Baker have
seen through two doors, only one of which had a window?
Robert Harris
I'd love to defend you Pamela but that doesn't work, unless you can prove
that Oswald saw the limo pass by and then went to the lunchroom. Or unless
you labelled that as a speculation in your book.
Shelley said Oswald was near a phone, but that was before 12 and he didn't
say he was in the lunchroom.
Robert Harris
WhiskyJoe
> "Lee Harvey Oswald, after taking a look at the
> motorcade from the front door of the Texas
> School Book Depository, ambles casually into
> the lunchroom to buy a bottle of Coke. He's
> waiting for a telephone call that never comes."
If Oswald was at the front door as the motorcade
passed by, why didn't he tell the reporters
"I didn't shoot anyone. I was watching the
motorcade from the front door?"
He was certainly given many opportunities
to talk to the press after being arrested.
Why wouldn't he tell them he had an alibi?
Was he staying silent on this to cover up
his real crime? Stealing a coke from the
coke machine?
Anthony Marsh
>
>> "Lee Harvey Oswald, after taking a look at the
>> motorcade from the front door of the Texas
>> School Book Depository, ambles casually into
>> the lunchroom to buy a bottle of Coke. He's
>> waiting for a telephone call that never comes."
>
> If Oswald was at the front door as the motorcade
> passed by, why didn't he tell the reporters
> "I didn't shoot anyone. I was watching the
> motorcade from the front door?"
>
> He was certainly given many opportunities
> to talk to the press after being arrested.
> Why wouldn't he tell them he had an alibi?
>
He did. But why should you blindly believe everything he said?
markusp
It seems to me that LHO was intelligent enough to know that he should
reveal nothing to the reporters, especially at the midnight kangaroo
court. He did say that he did not shoot anyone. I believe he did offer his
alibi during his interrogation sessions, by claiming that he was in the
second floor lunchroom. If he was a low-level intelligence operative for
the FBI, he was quite good at continuing to conceal it after his arrest.
Of course we could simply consult the meticulous handwritten
contemporaneous notes of his interrogations made by Fritz:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=29103
These are not what I would expect, or should have expected in 1963, of the
interrogation of a suspect in the murder of the POTUS. Oswald's
interrogations could have and should have been audio recorded. I find this
to be unacceptable and inexcusable.
~Mark
WhiskyJoe
> It seems to me that LHO was intelligent enough
> to know that he should reveal nothing to the
> reporters, especially at the midnight kangaroo
> court.
This answer does not make sense. If he was really
on the front steps of the TSBD as the motorcade
passed by, why shouldn't he tell the reporters
of this. How would this statement make his
situation any worse?
This is the usual CT defense. To explain away
someone's incomprehensible actions one just
implies that the reasons are too obvious to
explain.
But in this case, I want an explanation. Why,
specifically, is it a bad idea for Oswald to
tell reporters he was on the front steps if
he really was on the front steps?
And if he was on the front steps, why doesn't he
appear in any of the films and pictures taken
that day? Why is it Lovelady and not Oswald
that appears in the Altgens photograph of Z-255?
> Oswald's interrogations could have and should
> have been audio recorded. I find this to be
> unacceptable and inexcusable.
But they did allow Oswald to be on film and
answer questions from reporters. It does not
appear as if the police were fearful of Oswald
being asked questions by reporters and having
these answers recorded on film.
I should think there would be higher priority
of keeping Oswald from being film by reporters
than being recorded during interrogations.
After all, they would have control over what
ever he said in interrogations. But if he says
the wrong thing to reporters, while being filmed,
there is nothing they can do about it.
If the police were determined to not have what
Oswald has to say recorded, why parade Oswald in
front of reporters on multiple occasions?
Dave Reitzes
I can't believe that a serious researcher like Pamela would take a bit
of sheer speculation and publish it as though it were fact. There must
be some other explanation.
Help me out, Pam; what's the other explanation?
Dave
Anthony Marsh
>
>> It seems to me that LHO was intelligent enough
>> to know that he should reveal nothing to the
>> reporters, especially at the midnight kangaroo
>> court.
>
> This answer does not make sense. If he was really
> on the front steps of the TSBD as the motorcade
> passed by, why shouldn't he tell the reporters
> of this. How would this statement make his
> situation any worse?
>
> This is the usual CT defense. To explain away
> someone's incomprehensible actions one just
> implies that the reasons are too obvious to
> explain.
>
> But in this case, I want an explanation. Why,
No, you don't. You want to make up phony challenges and when people are
too bored with your shenanigans to reply you cite it as proof that they
can't answer.
> specifically, is it a bad idea for Oswald to
> tell reporters he was on the front steps if
> he really was on the front steps?
>
> And if he was on the front steps, why doesn't he
> appear in any of the films and pictures taken
> that day? Why is it Lovelady and not Oswald
> that appears in the Altgens photograph of Z-255?
>
Maybe because we don't have all the photos and films. Maybe because they
destroyed some photos and films. Maybe because no camera caught that
specific angle at that specific time. Why is there no film or photo of
the President between Z-210 and Z-223 when he is being shot?
Must be a cover-up, eh? Couldn't just be chance you suppose?
>> Oswald's interrogations could have and should
>> have been audio recorded. I find this to be
>> unacceptable and inexcusable.
>
> But they did allow Oswald to be on film and
> answer questions from reporters. It does not
> appear as if the police were fearful of Oswald
> being asked questions by reporters and having
> these answers recorded on film.
>
> I should think there would be higher priority
> of keeping Oswald from being film by reporters
> than being recorded during interrogations.
No. The main reason why they paraded Oswald before the press was to
refute the rumors that they were beating a confession out of him.
> After all, they would have control over what
> ever he said in interrogations. But if he says
> the wrong thing to reporters, while being filmed,
> there is nothing they can do about it.
What is THE WRONG THING? He just declared that he was innocent. Most
people do that. What could he possibly know about the conspirators? He
already said they were framing him because he had been in Russia.
Dave Reitzes
> It seems to me that LHO was intelligent enough to know that he should
> reveal nothing to the reporters, especially at the midnight kangaroo
> court. He did say that he did not shoot anyone. I believe he did offer his
> alibi during his interrogation sessions, by claiming that he was in the
> second floor lunchroom. If he was a low-level intelligence operative for
> the FBI, he was quite good at continuing to conceal it after his arrest.
> Of course we could simply consult the meticulous handwritten
> contemporaneous notes of his interrogations made by Fritz:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=29103
>
> These are not what I would expect, or should have expected in 1963, of the
> interrogation of a suspect in the murder of the POTUS. Oswald's
> interrogations could have and should have been audio recorded. I find this
> to be unacceptable and inexcusable.
>
> ~Mark
Mark,
Do you think that skepticism about Oswald's guilt makes it acceptable
or excusable for an author to make up a story about Oswald's
whereabouts during the shooting?
Dave
jfk...@gmail.com
This was a narrative of the events, my version, my opinion. It's not
speculation unless you also call claiming he was the shooter
speculation.
Since LHO wasn't allowed to live long enough to stand trial, we don't
know exactly where he was during the assassination.
>
> Shelley said Oswald was near a phone, but that was before 12 and he didn't
> say he was in the lunchroom.
There is no hard evidence that he was not on the lower floors during
the assassination.
markusp
Of course it is not acceptable nor excusable. When people speculate about
his physical location during the shooting, it should be at least
supplemented by some testimony or other verifiable facts. I've stated
before that I can easily accept that Oswald placed the rifle on the 6th
floor, and may have even fired it. Please note that I do not state that I
believe LHO fired at the limo. Respectfully,
~Mark
markusp
> > It seems to me that LHO was intelligent enough
> > to know that he should reveal nothing to the
> > reporters, especially at the midnight kangaroo
> > court.
>
> This answer does not make sense. If he was really
> on the front steps of the TSBD as the motorcade
> passed by, why shouldn't he tell the reporters
> of this. How would this statement make his
> situation any worse?
I doubt that Oswald was on the front steps during the actual shooting,
but that's merely my opinion.
> This is the usual CT defense. To explain away
> someone's incomprehensible actions one just
> implies that the reasons are too obvious to
> explain.
If Oswald was a low-level operative for the FBI, would that qualify as
an obvious reason for his failure to defend himself in front of the
midnight television and film cameras?
> But in this case, I want an explanation. Why,
> specifically, is it a bad idea for Oswald to
> tell reporters he was on the front steps if
> he really was on the front steps?
The facts are that he did not reveal to the reporters his whereabouts
during the shooting. He apparently was not very complicit in his
interrogation sessions, so we could likely expect that no information
would be proffered during the dog and pony show. My speculation is that he
was accepting a defeatist posture, and simply not providing information to
anyone. It sure seemed as though he would have given information to Mr.
Abt.
> And if he was on the front steps, why doesn't he
> appear in any of the films and pictures taken
> that day? Why is it Lovelady and not Oswald
> that appears in the Altgens photograph of Z-255?
He doesn't appear in any of the extant photographic images. It seems like
a leap of faith to expect that he must appear in one of those. It's
definitely Lovelady in the Altgens image.
> > Oswald's interrogations could have and should
> > have been audio recorded. I find this to be
> > unacceptable and inexcusable.
>
> But they did allow Oswald to be on film and
> answer questions from reporters. It does not
> appear as if the police were fearful of Oswald
> being asked questions by reporters and having
> these answers recorded on film.
Allowing Oswald to appear at the midnight press conference in front of
recording devices cannot reconcile the DPD's failure to secure any type of
recording equipment for the actual interrogations. The press conference
cannot excuse this dismal failure.
> I should think there would be higher priority
> of keeping Oswald from being film by reporters
> than being recorded during interrogations.
> After all, they would have control over what
> ever he said in interrogations. But if he says
> the wrong thing to reporters, while being filmed,
> there is nothing they can do about it.
If we try to analyze Oswald's demeanor during the press conference using a
different perspective, what ramifications would it have on his situation
if he had been belligerent, standoffish, or otherwise loudly proclaiming
his innocence?
> If the police were determined to not have what
> Oswald has to say recorded, why parade Oswald in
> front of reporters on multiple occasions?
I did not claim that the DPD were determined to not allow Oswald's
comments to be recorded. The DPD was thrust into the assassination of the
POTUS as was everyone else, and the DPD fumbled in several areas, and the
interrogation documentation was one of these areas. Evidence handling, in
terms of the shell casings, are another. Respectfully,
~Mark
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 7, 9:45 pm, WhiskyJoe<jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> It seems to me that LHO was intelligent enough
>>> to know that he should reveal nothing to the
>>> reporters, especially at the midnight kangaroo
>>> court.
>>
>> This answer does not make sense. If he was really
>> on the front steps of the TSBD as the motorcade
>> passed by, why shouldn't he tell the reporters
>> of this. How would this statement make his
>> situation any worse?
>
> I doubt that Oswald was on the front steps during the actual shooting,
> but that's merely my opinion.
>
>> This is the usual CT defense. To explain away
>> someone's incomprehensible actions one just
>> implies that the reasons are too obvious to
>> explain.
>
> If Oswald was a low-level operative for the FBI, would that qualify as
> an obvious reason for his failure to defend himself in front of the
> midnight television and film cameras?
>
No, and Oswald was not a low-level FBI operative.
But if were any type of intelligence operative, he would be taught to
say nothing except for a couple of coded phrases.
>> But in this case, I want an explanation. Why,
>> specifically, is it a bad idea for Oswald to
>> tell reporters he was on the front steps if
>> he really was on the front steps?
>
> The facts are that he did not reveal to the reporters his whereabouts
> during the shooting. He apparently was not very complicit in his
> interrogation sessions, so we could likely expect that no information
Which reporter asked him where he was during the shooting? He said he
was working in the building.
> would be proffered during the dog and pony show. My speculation is that he
> was accepting a defeatist posture, and simply not providing information to
> anyone. It sure seemed as though he would have given information to Mr.
> Abt.
>
>> And if he was on the front steps, why doesn't he
>> appear in any of the films and pictures taken
>> that day? Why is it Lovelady and not Oswald
>> that appears in the Altgens photograph of Z-255?
>
> He doesn't appear in any of the extant photographic images. It seems like
> a leap of faith to expect that he must appear in one of those. It's
> definitely Lovelady in the Altgens image.
>
Of course, but then someone will make up the argument that the reason
why we don't see Oswald is because he was BEHIND Lovelady and out of
view. It never ends.
>>> Oswald's interrogations could have and should
>>> have been audio recorded. I find this to be
>>> unacceptable and inexcusable.
>>
>> But they did allow Oswald to be on film and
>> answer questions from reporters. It does not
>> appear as if the police were fearful of Oswald
>> being asked questions by reporters and having
>> these answers recorded on film.
>
> Allowing Oswald to appear at the midnight press conference in front of
> recording devices cannot reconcile the DPD's failure to secure any type of
> recording equipment for the actual interrogations. The press conference
> cannot excuse this dismal failure.
>
>> I should think there would be higher priority
>> of keeping Oswald from being film by reporters
>> than being recorded during interrogations.
>> After all, they would have control over what
>> ever he said in interrogations. But if he says
>> the wrong thing to reporters, while being filmed,
>> there is nothing they can do about it.
>
> If we try to analyze Oswald's demeanor during the press conference using a
> different perspective, what ramifications would it have on his situation
> if he had been belligerent, standoffish, or otherwise loudly proclaiming
> his innocence?
>
Certain WC defenders here claim that Oswald loudly proclaiming his
innocence is proof of his guilt.
Dave Reitzes
I hear you loud and clear, and I thank you for response. I think it is
the responsibility of all students of the case to hold researchers
accountable for the quality of their work, regardless of what "side"
we may take on the issues. Conflating speculation with fact serves no
constructive purpose for any of us.
Dave
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then how did a bullet from that rifle end up in the limo?
markusp
> > before that I can easily accept that Oswald placed the rifle on the 6th
> > floor, and may have even fired it. Please note that I do not state that I
> > believe LHO fired at the limo. Respectfully,
>
> Then how did a bullet from that rifle end up in the limo?
If the ballistics and NAA studies were accurate, and the fragments
recovered in the limo were a definite match to the MC rifle
exclusively, then it's very likely that those projectiles were fired
from that rifle.
Respectfully,
~Mark
Anthony Marsh
What are you trying to sell here? No bullet ended up IN the limo. Are
you claiming that someone planted a bullet in the limo?
Maybe by the SS agent who cleaned up the back seat.
BTW, I am doing a favor for some WC defender who has a theory that JFK
was shot by a Secret Service agent with an AR-15. His theory fails
because no pieces from an AR-15 bullet were found in the limo. So, I am
going to help him out here:
Why were no fragments from that AR-15 bullet found in the limo?
Because the Secret Service agent who cleaned out the back seat knew to
remove all AR-15 fragments. How could he possibly know to do that?
What was the name of the Secret Service agent who cleaned out the back
seat of the limo? George Hickey.
What was the name of the Secret Srrvice agent that Donahue claimed shot
the President? George Hickey.
Coincidence? I think not!
You're welcome.
Anthony Marsh
That's nice. Even if the ballistics are not perfect and the NAA is
worthless, those are still pieces of Mannlicher-Carcano bullet(s).
Dave Reitzes
Bob,
You want to try to explain this to Pam? As much as I doubt it, there's
a slight possibility she may actually listen to you.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
It's speculation unless you have evidence.
What was your evidence, Pam?
> Since LHO wasn't allowed to live long enough to stand trial, we don't
> know exactly where he was during the assassination.
But your article says precisely where he was, Pam. Kindly cite your
source.
> > Shelley said Oswald was near a phone, but that was before 12 and he didn't
> > say he was in the lunchroom.
>
> There is no hard evidence that he was not on the lower floors during
> the assassination.
So you're advancing your writing as a "countermyth," as Oliver Stone
said of his movie; is that correct, Pam?
Dave
Dave Reitzes
> On Apr 3, 9:47 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 31, 10:57 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > From the Gentle Hints Department:
>
> > > How did you divine that Oswald was outside watching the motorcade?
>
> > Come on, Pamela, I know a serious researcher like you (you were on the
> > Discovery Channel!) would never just make something like this up out
> > of thin air.
>
> Would Multiple Choice help? Your source for Oswald standing outside
> is:
>
> a) Altgens photo (Oswald in the doorway!)
> b) Ouija board
> c) Remote viewing
> d) You're a "witness" to that, too
Take your time, Pam. No pressure.
Dave
pjfk
which are little more than apologist propaganda, but it looks as though
McAdams is actually the one paying for them?
Certainly Dave will take time to explain, especially since he seems to
have all the time in the world when it comes to initiating trolls against
other people.
Dave Reitzes
Is that correct, Pam?
Hello?
Dave
Bud
> Not only does Reitzes ask for donations to his WC defender web pages,
> which are little more than apologist propaganda, but it looks as though
> McAdams is actually the one paying for them?
The beauty of being able to support what you say is that you don`t
have to put a question mark at the end of your statements.
Dave Reitzes
Explain what, Pam? I only see you making things up, as usual.
Dave
jfk...@gmail.com
Simple question for Reitzes, but of course he doesn't bother to be
forthcoming with a simple answer, does he.
Let's try to help him be a little more forthcoming --
Is McAdams paying for your website? If so, how much? All of your
costs or a portion of them? If McAdams is paying for them, why then
do you ask for donations?
jfk...@gmail.com
> On Apr 17, 1:21 am, pjfk <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not only does Reitzes ask for donations to his WC defender web pages,
> > which are little more than apologist propaganda, but it looks as though
> > McAdams is actually the one paying for them?
>
> The beauty of being able to support what you say is that you don`t
> have to put a question mark at the end of your statements.
The beauty of being a dedicated LNT is that you don't even need to bother
to ask questions.
Bud
> On Apr 17, 8:15 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 1:21 am, pjfk <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Not only does Reitzes ask for donations to his WC defender web pages,
> > > which are little more than apologist propaganda, but it looks as though
> > > McAdams is actually the one paying for them?
>
> > The beauty of being able to support what you say is that you don`t
> > have to put a question mark at the end of your statements.
>
> The beauty of being a dedicated LNT is that you don't even need to bother
> to ask questions.
Not "Is that my ass or a hole in the ground" type questions, anyway.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
And she likes tolecture others about strawman arguments and assorted
fallacies...ROTFL!
Bud
> On Apr 17, 10:06 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 1:21 am, pjfk <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Not only does Reitzes ask for donations to his WC defender web pages,
> > > which are little more than apologist propaganda, but it looks as though
> > > McAdams is actually the one paying for them?
>
> > > Certainly Dave will take time to explain, especially since he seems to
> > > have all the time in the world when it comes to initiating trolls against
> > > other people.
>
> > Explain what, Pam? I only see you making things up, as usual.
>
> > Dave
>
> Simple question for Reitzes, but of course he doesn't bother to be
> forthcoming with a simple answer, does he.
I think he called your charge a fabrication that required no
explanation.
> Let's try to help him be a little more forthcoming --
Lets see you produce something tangible to support your suspicions/
accusations.
> Is McAdams paying for your website? If so, how much? All of your
> costs or a portion of them? If McAdams is paying for them, why then
> do you ask for donations?
These kind of "when did you stop beating your wife" questions
shouldn`t be allowed. Someone just might be tempted to speculate how
Pamela gets money.
pjfk
> On Apr 17, 1:14 pm, "jfk2...@gmail.com" <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 8:15 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 17, 1:21 am, pjfk <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Not only does Reitzes ask for donations to his WC defender web pages,
> > > > which are little more than apologist propaganda, but it looks as though
> > > > McAdams is actually the one paying for them?
>
> > > The beauty of being able to support what you say is that you don`t
> > > have to put a question mark at the end of your statements.
>
> > The beauty of being a dedicated LNT is that you don't even need to bother
> > to ask questions.
>
> Not "Is that my ass or a hole in the ground" type questions, anyway.
Definitely no need for an imagination. That response managed to be
both boring and lame.
Dave Reitzes
>
> > On Apr 17, 1:21 am, pjfk <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Not only does Reitzes ask for donations to his WC defender web pages,
> > > which are little more than apologist propaganda, but it looks as though
> > > McAdams is actually the one paying for them?
>
> > > Certainly Dave will take time to explain, especially since he seems to
> > > have all the time in the world when it comes to initiating trolls against
> > > other people.
>
> > Explain what, Pam? I only see you making things up, as usual.
>
> > Dave
>
> Simple question for Reitzes, but of course he doesn't bother to be
> forthcoming with a simple answer, does he.
>
> Let's try to help him be a little more forthcoming --
>
No. Why do you make such things up?
If so, how much? �All of your
> costs or a portion of them? �If McAdams is paying for them, why then
> do you ask for donations?
Poor Pam. She can't isolate even a single error on my website, so she
continually resorts to the ad hominem fallacy to try to discredit me.
Newcomers, check out the website that has Pam frothing so, featuring
articles, book reviews, documents, and loads of useful links:
Constructive criticism always welcome.
Dave \:^)
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2010 13:13:55 -0400, "jfk2...@gmail.com" <jfk2...@gmail.com>
Perhaps Pamela is finally gearing up to write the deliberately
dishonest and misleading ("propaganda") article she threatened to post
about me back in November 2008:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1056149baae733c8?hl=en&dmode=source
Bring it on, Pam.
Dave
Bud
Thats the problem, you need something more tangible, a child can ask an
endless stream of questions. In an investigation, the questions need to
have merit, drawn from substance, not idle wondering.
You criticize the WC, as if they were going to approach the task like
you are, with decades of imagination, and creating a "level field" between
a mountain of actual evidence and an mountain of innuendo.
> That response managed to be
> both boring and lame.
What difference does it make? You want to believe there is a vast
network of people out to thwart your cause. You want to question, but not
why you tenaciously cling to any information, no matter how weak or
suspect, that supports what you want to believe. You aren`t looking for
answers, you are looking for justifications for your beliefs.
Dave Reitzes
> On Apr 5, 1:06 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 3, 9:47 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 31, 10:57 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > From the Gentle Hints Department:
>
> > > > How did you divine that Oswald was outside watching the motorcade?
>
> > > Come on, Pamela, I know a serious researcher like you (you were on the
> > > Discovery Channel!) would never just make something like this up out
> > > of thin air.
>
> > Would Multiple Choice help? Your source for Oswald standing outside
> > is:
>
> > a) Altgens photo (Oswald in the doorway!)
> > b) Ouija board
> > c) Remote viewing
> > d) You're a "witness" to that, too
>
> Take your time, Pam. No pressure.
Pamela, this was the point of the thread where you attempted to change the
subject.
I'm afraid that's not going to fly.
Did you make up a story about Oswald, Pam? Or was it merely an oversight
that you neglected to cite a source, a source so definitive that it
completely overturns the findings of two government investigations -- and
what was that source?
Just answer the question, Pam.
Dave Reitzes
Pam, how is it you're able to heap scorn upon all those evil "LNTers" and
"propagandists" day in and day out, but you can't defend your own
published research?
How do you intend to topple the "Ongoing Coverup" by publishing fiction
disguised as research?
Dave Reitzes
Pam, what led you to believe that John pays for my website?
Dave
yeuhd
> These are not what I would expect, or should have expected in 1963, of the
> interrogation of a suspect in the murder of the POTUS. Oswald's
> interrogations could have and should have been audio recorded. I find this
> to be unacceptable and inexcusable.
In 1963, there was no history of tape recording police interrogations
of murder suspects in Dallas or in Texas. You're applying modern
standards to a different time.
yeuhd
> If you look on page 169 of the copy of CAR CRASH CULTURE I sent you,
> you will see, in my essay "SS-100-X" where I say:
>
> front door of the Texas School Book Depository, ambles casually into
> the lunchroom to buy a bottle of Coke. He's waiting for a telephone
> call that never comes."
>
> Pamela McElwain-Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com
None of the building's employees standing in or near the entrance to
the TSBD (including Bill Shelley, Billy Lovelady, Otis Williams,
Pauline Sandera, Roy Lewis, and Sarah Stanton) reported seeing Oswald
anywhere after noon. Stanton, who was standing behind Lovelady in the
entranceway, and who went into the building immediately after the
shooting, said that she did not see Oswald at all on November 22.
Sandera, who said she was standing last in the line of spectators —
nearest the door — also said she did not see Oswald at all on November
22. Williams, who went back into the building immediately after the
shooting, could not recall seeing Oswald at any time on November 22.
yeuhd
that happen without the poster doing it?
Peter Fokes
>FYI, I did not change the subject line above, nor would I. How does
>that happen without the poster doing it?
Well, another poster might change the subject header, or sometimes
Google automatically truncates long subject headers.
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
jfk...@gmail.com
Quit making excuses.
This was only the murder of the president of the us. They had tape
recorders, why didn't they use them?
tomnln
SEE>>>
SEE item #25>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:92c31c31-df91-4446...@i10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
ShutterBun
Mr. BALL. Did you have any tape recorder?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't have a tape recorder. We need one, if we
had one at this time we could have handled these conversations far
better.
Mr. BALL. The Dallas Police Department doesn't have one?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I have requested one several times but so far they
haven't gotten me one.
Anthony Marsh
> FYI, I did not change the subject line above, nor would I. How does
> that happen without the poster doing it?
>
Gremlins. They are real.
Dave Reitzes
Pamela doesn't seem to have any interest in defending this loony
scenario of hers.
Dave
Anthony Marsh
That's Texas. Not any modern state.
Anthony Marsh
That's correct. They were too poor to afford a tape recorder, although
narcotics had several. And don't look at all the reporters in the room
or you might accidentally see hundreds of tape recorders.
tomnln
SEE>>>
SEE item #25>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
"ShutterBun" <shutt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1d89ef01-56db-4762...@r11g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
yeuhd
> There was a "Recording Room Directly across the hell from Fritz.'so office
> SEE>>>
>
> SEE item #25>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
You are looking at a 1964 floor diagram, not a 1963 floor diagram, of
the police department. Show us a 1963 diagram.
tomnln
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e04aa83b-b850-423c...@p2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
yeuhd
> i SHOWEd YOU A WARREN COMMISSION exhibit !
Exactly. From 1964. Not 1963.
tomnln
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:64555f7d-03f0-4206...@i10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4bdce7eb$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Dave Reitzes
Pam?
Dave Reitzes
Oh, I think I've found the answer!
Does anyone want to take a guess?
Hint: Pamela's source may well be someone she claims to neither
believe nor disbelieve.
Dave \:^)
Dave Reitzes
> From the Gentle Hints Department:
>
> How did you divine that Oswald was outside watching the motorcade?
Pamela?
> Why was he outside if he was waiting for a phone call?
Pamela?
> What do you make of Judyth's claim that Oswald was standing in the
> sniper's nest with a rifle?
Pamela?
> What evidence would you propose could resolve this apparent conflict?
Pamela?
I still think these are reasonable questions.
Dave Reitzes
> From the Gentle Hints Department:
>
> How did you divine that Oswald was outside watching the motorcade?
>
pjfk
On Google no's 61,62,63,64,65,66.
In addition, he is using an incorrect name.
What is the point of moderating if an issue such as this remains
unaddressed?
black...@aol.com
What are you talking about?
As far as I know, there is no prohibition - for anyone - against
replying to your own posts.
pjfk
I am not allowed to do what Reitzes does. When I have, the posts have not
even been given the dignity of being rejected; they just go into the aaj
black hole. An exception was just made when my post added new
information, but that is not what Reitzes is doing. He is just repeating
his "Huh? How about it?" sort of statement.
You may be another one of those who can reply to your own posts.. But
let's not beg the question of what the purpose is of doing so when you are
only repeating yourself?
Dave Reitzes
Pamela can't defend her novel claims about the assassination, so she
attacks, evades, and plays the victim.
Dave
black...@aol.com
OK, I'm witcha on that: I think all posters should be treated the same.
(Although, I DO understand why, on a mod group, there may be a "list" of
people with a record of pushing the envelope.)
But the bottom line: As far as I know, there is no prohibition against
replying to one's own posts, even for "Huh? How about it?" reasons. I
think some people do it to jumpstart a forgotten thread.
Dave Reitzes
>
> > On May 23, 5:20�pm, pjfk <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Google no's 61,62,63,64,65,66.
>
> > > In addition, he is using an incorrect name.
>
> > > What is the point of moderating if an issue such as this remains
> > > unaddressed?
>
> > What are you talking about?
>
> > As far as I know, there is no prohibition - for anyone - against
> > replying to your own posts.
>
> I am not allowed to do what Reitzes does.
Research?
Dave \:^)
jfk...@gmail.com
> On May 25, 2:04 am, pjfk <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 3:16 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > As far as I know, there is no prohibition - for anyone - against
> > > replying to your own posts.
>
> > I am not allowed to do what Reitzes does. When I have, the posts have not
> > even been given the dignity of being rejected; they just go into the aaj
> > black hole. An exception was just made when my post added new
> > information, but that is not what Reitzes is doing. He is just repeating
> > his "Huh? How about it?" sort of statement.
>
> > You may be another one of those who can reply to your own posts.. But
> > let's not beg the question of what the purpose is of doing so when you are
> > only repeating yourself?
>
> OK, I'm witcha on that: I think all posters should be treated the same.
> (Although, I DO understand why, on a mod group, there may be a "list" of
> people with a record of pushing the envelope.)
And yet Reitzes, who creates volumes of posts, that are little more than
attacks on those who agree with him or simply replies to himself, when
nobody bites is not on that list?
>
> But the bottom line: As far as I know, there is no prohibition against
> replying to one's own posts, even for "Huh? How about it?" reasons. I
> think some people do it to jumpstart a forgotten thread.
Well then why are some such as apparently you and Reitzes allowed to do
this and others such as myself are not?
black...@aol.com
> On May 25, 12:35 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 25, 2:04 am, pjfk <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 24, 3:16 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > As far as I know, there is no prohibition - for anyone - against
> > > > replying to your own posts.
>
> > > I am not allowed to do what Reitzes does. When I have, the posts have not
> > > even been given the dignity of being rejected; they just go into the aaj
> > > black hole. An exception was just made when my post added new
> > > information, but that is not what Reitzes is doing. He is just repeating
> > > his "Huh? How about it?" sort of statement.
>
> > > You may be another one of those who can reply to your own posts.. But
> > > let's not beg the question of what the purpose is of doing so when you are
> > > only repeating yourself?
>
> > OK, I'm witcha on that: I think all posters should be treated the same.
> > (Although, I DO understand why, on a mod group, there may be a "list" of
> > people with a record of pushing the envelope.)
>
> And yet Reitzes, who creates volumes of posts, that are little more than
> attacks on those who agree with him or simply replies to himself, when
> nobody bites is not on that list?
I believe the wacko list is for people who serially push the envelope
too far, and who have had a lot of posts rejected.
Let me be blunt: Reitzes is more subtle and skilled at it than you. He
can whirl around the group and post lots of witty little things, but
he rarely goes too far. He knows where the line is, and he delivers
with subtle ribbing. And it's usually (but not always) aimed more at
the content than the poster. You have a tendency to try to copy Dave's
antics, but with less subtlety, and you push the envelope more. One
can detect anger in some of your posts.
And as a separate issue, you have developed a distinctive lexicon,
where you carefully choose phrases ("comfortable with", "define
tactics", "open the door to" which actually dilute your points. I'm
sure you don't want advice from me, but I'd suggest that you:
1) Make specific (not generalized) points. Construct your posts for
maximum impact, within the guidelines.
2) Deal with the content, not the poster. If you do deal with the
poster, keep it subtle and funny.
3) Try to avoid the phrases I mentioned.
4) Never attack the forum! Why piss off the very people who can reject
your posts?
5) If you perceive Reitzes making fun of you, I would suggest that you
not always respond so quickly. Let some of it roll off.
>
>
>
> > But the bottom line: As far as I know, there is no prohibition against
> > replying to one's own posts, even for "Huh? How about it?" reasons. I
> > think some people do it to jumpstart a forgotten thread.
>
> Well then why are some such as apparently you and Reitzes allowed to do
> this and others such as myself are not?
I don't remember ever doing it, but if I did, it was just to keep a
dying thread alive.
OK: .John and Peter - I think that if others can respond to their own
posts, Pamela should also be able to do so.
John McAdams
<black...@aol.com> wrote:
>On May 25, 6:49=A0pm, "jfk2...@gmail.com" <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 25, 12:35=A0pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > But the bottom line: As far as I know, there is no prohibition against
>> > replying to one's own posts, even for "Huh? How about it?" reasons. I
>> > think some people do it to jumpstart a forgotten thread.
>>
>> Well then why are some such as apparently you and Reitzes allowed to do
>> this and others such as myself are not?
>
>I don't remember ever doing it, but if I did, it was just to keep a
>dying thread alive.
>
>OK: .John and Peter - I think that if others can respond to their own
>posts, Pamela should also be able to do so.
>
We've never stopped her replying to her own posts per se.
We have rejected posts of hers where she ran afoul of other things we
told her she could not do, such as
(1.) ask whether I pay for Reitzes' web site -- she has been told I
don't, and to continue to ask the question is to call people here
liars.
(2.) suggest Reitzes is a "closet CT." This is simply a claim that he
is lying about what he believes.
It is the case that AFTER A POINT we will stop somebody replying to
their own posts, since that gets to be spam.
But then, Marris' "Question for McAdams" series was spam, and we let
that go on for quite a while.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pjfk
McAdams is far too modest. The posts that he rejected have been re-
posted to acj. But there have been a slew of them that went into the
aaj black hole before I realized what was happening. I had not
retained copies of them, as I am now doing.
pjfk
> On May 25, 6:49 pm, "jfk2...@gmail.com" <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 25, 12:35 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 25, 2:04 am, pjfk <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 24, 3:16 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > As far as I know, there is no prohibition - for anyone - against
> > > > > replying to your own posts.
>
> > > > I am not allowed to do what Reitzes does. When I have, the posts have not
> > > > even been given the dignity of being rejected; they just go into the aaj
> > > > black hole. An exception was just made when my post added new
> > > > information, but that is not what Reitzes is doing. He is just repeating
> > > > his "Huh? How about it?" sort of statement.
>
> > > > You may be another one of those who can reply to your own posts.. But
> > > > let's not beg the question of what the purpose is of doing so when you are
> > > > only repeating yourself?
>
> > > OK, I'm witcha on that: I think all posters should be treated the same.
> > > (Although, I DO understand why, on a mod group, there may be a "list" of
> > > people with a record of pushing the envelope.)
>
> > And yet Reitzes, who creates volumes of posts, that are little more than
> > attacks on those who agree with him or simply replies to himself, when
> > nobody bites is not on that list?
>
> I believe the wacko list is for people who serially push the envelope
> too far, and who have had a lot of posts rejected.
Thanks a lot. :-0
>
> Let me be blunt: Reitzes is more subtle and skilled at it than you. He
> can whirl around the group and post lots of witty little things, but
> he rarely goes too far.
Yet his posts are sufficiently uninteresting for him to have to spam the
threads repeatedly in order to keep them alive. I think you may give him
too much credit.
> He knows where the line is, and he delivers
> with subtle ribbing. And it's usually (but not always) aimed more at
> the content than the poster. You have a tendency to try to copy Dave's
> antics, but with less subtlety, and you push the envelope more. One
> can detect anger in some of your posts.
I am doing my best to make something constructive out of this. I am angry
that I had to shorten my name because of my concern over becoming too
controversial and having it affect innocent members of my family. I do
not apologize for that anger.
>
> And as a separate issue, you have developed a distinctive lexicon,
> where you carefully choose phrases ("comfortable with", "define
> tactics", "open the door to" which actually dilute your points. I'm
> sure you don't want advice from me, but I'd suggest that you:
> 1) Make specific (not generalized) points. Construct your posts for
> maximum impact, within the guidelines.
> 2) Deal with the content, not the poster. If you do deal with the
> poster, keep it subtle and funny.
> 3) Try to avoid the phrases I mentioned.
> 4) Never attack the forum! Why piss off the very people who can reject
> your posts?
> 5) If you perceive Reitzes making fun of you, I would suggest that you
> not always respond so quickly. Let some of it roll off.
Interesting observations. I appreciate your feedback. You seem to be
getting an idea of what the basis of my book is, which is not only what
happened in the assassination but how people reason, or fail to reason,
about it.
>
>
> > > But the bottom line: As far as I know, there is no prohibition against
> > > replying to one's own posts, even for "Huh? How about it?" reasons. I
> > > think some people do it to jumpstart a forgotten thread.
>
> > Well then why are some such as apparently you and Reitzes allowed to do
> > this and others such as myself are not?
>
> I don't remember ever doing it, but if I did, it was just to keep a
> dying thread alive.
That's exactly what Reitzes has been doing, and he has refused to change
the headers to "Pamela Brown" so that is distressing to me all over again.
You might have some understanding of my distress -- you have not even
wanted to be known by your real name on this board.
>
> OK: .John and Peter - I think that if others can respond to their own
> posts, Pamela should also be able to do so.
If I were to do so, it would be to see if I could do it, not merely to
keep a dead thread alive.
Anthony Marsh
> On May 25, 6:49 pm, "jfk2...@gmail.com"<jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 25, 12:35 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com"<blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 25, 2:04 am, pjfk<pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On May 24, 3:16 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com"<blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> As far as I know, there is no prohibition - for anyone - against
>>>>> replying to your own posts.
>>
>>>> I am not allowed to do what Reitzes does. When I have, the posts have not
>>>> even been given the dignity of being rejected; they just go into the aaj
>>>> black hole. An exception was just made when my post added new
>>>> information, but that is not what Reitzes is doing. He is just repeating
>>>> his "Huh? How about it?" sort of statement.
>>
>>>> You may be another one of those who can reply to your own posts.. But
>>>> let's not beg the question of what the purpose is of doing so when you are
>>>> only repeating yourself?
>>
>>> OK, I'm witcha on that: I think all posters should be treated the same.
>>> (Although, I DO understand why, on a mod group, there may be a "list" of
>>> people with a record of pushing the envelope.)
>>
>> And yet Reitzes, who creates volumes of posts, that are little more than
>> attacks on those who agree with him or simply replies to himself, when
>> nobody bites is not on that list?
>
> I believe the wacko list is for people who serially push the envelope
> too far, and who have had a lot of posts rejected.
>
> Let me be blunt: Reitzes is more subtle and skilled at it than you. He
Let me be blunt. You're full of it. You know that McAdams does not
adminster the rules fairly and equally. He rules by fiat and bias. He
allows and encourages his buddies to attack conspiracy believer and then
forbids the conspiracy believers from complaining about the unfairly
rules.
William Yates
And of course it was only Pamela who refused to abide by Blackburst's
request. Eventually, the mods had to step in and enforce that. And I'm
sure they will enforce your request eventually, too. But they can't do
that in less time than it took them in Blackburst's case. That would
create an uneven playing field and make some posters more equal than
others. And you know how you hate uneven playing fields and some posters
being treated as more equal than others.
John McAdams
<william_...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I don't think Dave is using Pamela's full name anymore, *except* for
the fact that he might use it when he is citing one of Pamela's
articles.
In citations, it's important to get the name right, or else the cited
work can't be found.
Since Pamela always seems to be looking for a grievance, it's hard to
resist pulling her chain at times.
pjfk
Unfair, McAdams is creating a strawman. I am looking for fairness and
equality; damnable things in this environment it seems.
I objected only to the use of the incorrect name in the HEADERS of the
posts, especially when Reitzes was only spamming the dead thread to
try to keep it alive and could easily edit the headers.
pjfk
wrote:
I am not complaining about my actual name being used on one board
when it is used on another. I am simply asking that part of my name
not be used.
>Eventually, the mods had to step in and enforce that...
I must have put up a terrible fight.
>And I'm
> sure they will enforce your request eventually, too.
Your empathy is overwhelming.
> But they can't do
> that in less time than it took them in Blackburst's case. That would
> create an uneven playing field and make some posters more equal than
> others. And you know how you hate uneven playing fields and some posters
> being treated as more equal than others.
Following your logic the mods may never get my situation straight as
Blackburst is a more-equal-animal on aaj and I am not.
pjfk
Blackburst' seems to be comfortable with what seem to me the
superficialities and even triviality of Reitzes process. Maybe that is
somehow preferable to following a process that actually moves things
forward; hard to tell.
black...@aol.com
>
> > Let me be blunt: Reitzes is more subtle and skilled at it than you.
>
> adminster the rules fairly and equally. He rules by fiat and bias. He
> allows and encourages his buddies to attack conspiracy believer and then
> forbids the conspiracy believers from complaining about the unfairly
> rules.
I SAID above that I think Pamela and others should be treated fairly.
black...@aol.com
> Your empathy is overwhelming.
>
> > But they can't do
> > that in less time than it took them in Blackburst's case. That would
> > create an uneven playing field and make some posters more equal than
> > others. And you know how you hate uneven playing fields and some posters
> > being treated as more equal than others.
>
> Following your logic the mods may never get my situation straight as
> Blackburst is a more-equal-animal on aaj and I am not.
I don't push the envelope much out here. And as even .John will
verify, I can be nauseatingly polite and restrained.
black...@aol.com
> > I believe the wacko list is for people who serially push the envelope
> > too far, and who have had a lot of posts rejected.
>
> Thanks a lot. :-0
I'M not calling you a wacko. .John recently mentioned putting you on
such a list. You do post a lot.
>
>
>
> > Let me be blunt: Reitzes is more subtle and skilled at it than you. He
> > can whirl around the group and post lots of witty little things, but
> > he rarely goes too far.
>
> Yet his posts are sufficiently uninteresting for him to have to spam the
> threads repeatedly in order to keep them alive. I think you may give him
> too much credit.
Yeah, but there's a humorous side to many of them. Pointed humor, but
humor.
>
> > He knows where the line is, and he delivers
> > with subtle ribbing. And it's usually (but not always) aimed more at
> > the content than the poster. You have a tendency to try to copy Dave's
> > antics, but with less subtlety, and you push the envelope more. One
> > can detect anger in some of your posts.
>
> I am doing my best to make something constructive out of this. I am angry
> that I had to shorten my name because of my concern over becoming too
> controversial and having it affect innocent members of my family. I do
> not apologize for that anger.
I'm witcha on that, too. I understand.
>
>
>
> > And as a separate issue, you have developed a distinctive lexicon,
> > where you carefully choose phrases ("comfortable with", "define
> > tactics", "open the door to" which actually dilute your points. I'm
> > sure you don't want advice from me, but I'd suggest that you:
> > 1) Make specific (not generalized) points. Construct your posts for
> > maximum impact, within the guidelines.
> > 2) Deal with the content, not the poster. If you do deal with the
> > poster, keep it subtle and funny.
> > 3) Try to avoid the phrases I mentioned.
> > 4) Never attack the forum! Why piss off the very people who can reject
> > your posts?
> > 5) If you perceive Reitzes making fun of you, I would suggest that you
> > not always respond so quickly. Let some of it roll off.
>
> Interesting observations. I appreciate your feedback. You seem to be
> getting an idea of what the basis of my book is, which is not only what
> happened in the assassination but how people reason, or fail to reason,
> about it.
Not sure I understand. I hope you're not writing it just to validate
POVs you agree with.
>
>
>
> > > > But the bottom line: As far as I know, there is no prohibition against
> > > > replying to one's own posts, even for "Huh? How about it?" reasons. I
> > > > think some people do it to jumpstart a forgotten thread.
>
> > > Well then why are some such as apparently you and Reitzes allowed to do
> > > this and others such as myself are not?
>
> > I don't remember ever doing it, but if I did, it was just to keep a
> > dying thread alive.
>
> That's exactly what Reitzes has been doing, and he has refused to change
> the headers to "Pamela Brown" so that is distressing to me all over again.
> You might have some understanding of my distress -- you have not even
> wanted to be known by your real name on this board.
Point well-taken. I prefer to be Blackburst out here.
black...@aol.com
>
> > Let me be blunt. You're full of it. You know that McAdams does not
> > adminster the rules fairly and equally. He rules by fiat and bias. He
> > allows and encourages his buddies to attack conspiracy believer and then
> > forbids the conspiracy believers from complaining about the unfairly
> > rules.
>
> Blackburst' seems to be comfortable with what seem to me the
> superficialities and even triviality of Reitzes process. Maybe that is
> somehow preferable to following a process that actually moves things
> forward; hard to tell.
I'm not taking sides. I want everybody treated fairly. There isn't
much "moving forward" out here, anyway.
Gerry Simone
the biggest conspiracy ever. ;)
John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4bfd5598...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...