Why are some LNs so obsessed by Judyth?
Peter Fokes
PF
polly brown
Interesting observation. It is my impression that this an indication
that, for reasons they of course refuse to discuss, they find Judyth a
threat to the clean and pristine LNT landscape.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
steve
why are some CT's so obsessed with Judyth? the ones for AND the ones
against?
steve
> On Jan 5, 9:34 am, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>
> > I haven't got a clue myself.
>
> > PF
>
> Interesting observation. It is my impression that this an indication
> that, for reasons they of course refuse to discuss, they find Judyth a
> threat to the clean and pristine LNT landscape.
>
iv said it once and i'll say it a thousand times. Judyth gives
everyone who thinks there may have been a conspiracy a bad name. i
will not let some newbie fall into Judyth's nonsense, looking to get
some insight into what might have happened, like i did when she first
came on the scene, only to shift through all her "mishmash" to
discover she had nothing to back her wacky claims up. no credible
evidence and no credible witness.
John McAdams
wrote:
>I haven't got a clue myself.
>
Because some of us hang around here with Martin and Pamela pushing her
story.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Why are LNers so obsessed with Judyth? Answer: They think that debunking
her is a shortcut way to dismiss all conspiracy notions.
steve
mabey so, but you responded to me, and i was asking about ct's.
Martin Shackelford
ignorant.
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2e49604d-e9bf-4222...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
I was turning your rhetoric back on you.
bigdog
Who's Judyth?
steve
wrote:
> Tony is a longtime CT--a fact of which you are apparently completely
> ignorant.
tony was responding to something i wrote Martin "why are some CT's so
obsessed with Judyth? the ones for AND the ones against?" he responded
talking about lone nutters. try following the converstaion and not
ASSuming what i am talking about. it only points out the fact that you are
completely ignorant. he even clarifies why he responded the way he did in
a later post. would you care Martin to point out where i said in this
thread that Tony was LN? you just think im soooooooooooooooooooooooooo
stupid because i dont agree with you on Baker. i happen to know a lot more
than you think. try and comprehend next time. you should also not let the
Baker disagreement effect your brain so much that you take cheap shots on
other threads, i may keep silent a lot on here, but you have no idea on
which points we agree on when it comes to things other than Baker, you may
only end up shooting yourself in the foot.
>
> Martin
>
> "steve" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
steve
there was no rhetoric. i was asking a serious question. obviouslly you
dont believe her, and i dont believe her, but some ct's just HAVE to
believe her. like if Judyth is not telling the truth the whole ct angle
would just fall apart. or they need to believe her to connect all the
dots. they believe her with nothing to really go on, just a lot of
hunches. you say you didnt believe it just from how absurd it was from the
beginning didnt you?
Martin Shackelford
you didn't consider Tony a CT. Don't play dumb, steve.
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:34c5ddd2-6ad5-44d7...@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
just fall apart" tells me two things--
1) You know very little about CT positions; many CTs would find this a
surprise.
2) Your disdain for the "CT angle" is an admission that you support the
WC. Sooner or later, most of Judyth's attackers fall into one of two
camps:
1) WC supporters.
2) Garrison bashers.
Or both.
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cabdbd13-e7eb-423f...@s27g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 10, 10:27 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> steve wrote:
>>> On Jan 9, 1:43 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> steve wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 5, 10:34 pm, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>>>>>> I haven't got a clue myself.
>>>>>> PF
>>>>> why are some CT's so obsessed with Judyth? the ones for AND the ones
>>>>> against?
>>>> Why are LNers so obsessed with Judyth? Answer: They think that debunking
>>>> her is a shortcut way to dismiss all conspiracy notions.
>>> mabey so, but you responded to me, and i was asking about ct's.
>> I was turning your rhetoric back on you.
>
> there was no rhetoric. i was asking a serious question. obviouslly you
> dont believe her, and i dont believe her, but some ct's just HAVE to
> believe her. like if Judyth is not telling the truth the whole ct angle
> would just fall apart. or they need to believe her to connect all the
You just confirmed a charge that I have made which some WC defenders deny.
You want to discredit her as a shortcut way to deny any conspiracy.
> dots. they believe her with nothing to really go on, just a lot of
> hunches. you say you didnt believe it just from how absurd it was from the
> beginning didnt you?
>
The moment I heard that someone claimed to have been Oswald's lover.
polly brown
I disagree. Judyth's coming forth has unmasked some of the sheep-in-
wolves'-clothing, apologists pretending to be CTs. This is
significant in that it is now easier to define where sandbagging of CT
research is coming from.
However, Judyth's existence is a threat to the apologists. The myth
they are attempting to float is evidence of that. You are reverting to
part of the apologist myth about Judyth. She does have documentation,
both direct and circumstantial, and she does have Anna Lewis, who is a
credible witness.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jan 6, 11:45=A0am, steve <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 9:59=A0am, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 5, 9:34=A0am, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>>
>> > > I haven't got a clue myself.
>>
>> > > PF
>>
>> > Interesting observation. It is my impression that this an indication
>> > that, for reasons they of course refuse to discuss, they find Judyth a
>> > threat to the clean and pristine LNT landscape.
>>
>> =A0 =A0iv said it once and i'll say it a thousand times. Judyth gives
>> everyone who thinks there may have been a conspiracy a bad name. i
>> will not let some newbie fall into Judyth's nonsense, looking to get
>> some insight into what might have happened, like i did when she first
>> came on the scene, only to shift through all her "mishmash" to
>> discover she had nothing to back her wacky claims up. no credible
>> evidence and no credible witness.
>
>I disagree. Judyth's coming forth has unmasked some of the sheep-in-
>wolves'-clothing, apologists pretending to be CTs. This is
>significant in that it is now easier to define where sandbagging of CT
>research is coming from.
>
Oh, my!
Pamela is saying that people like Barb are *really* LNs, who are just
pretending to be CTs.
Seems the conspiracy is pretty big, doesn't it?
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
curtjester1
There are literally hundreds of people that hung around LHO and had
something to say about it. What's one more?
CJ
steve
wrote:
> The sentence "you responded to me and I was asking about CTs" implied that
> you didn't consider Tony a CT. Don't play dumb, steve.
the only one playing dumb is you Martin, or you just cant follow a
conversation. i asked a question "why are some CTs so obsessed with
Judyth? the ones for AND the ones against? " Tony responded to MY POST,
which was about CTs. his response was "Why are LNers so obsessed with
Judyth? Answer: They think that debunking her is a shortcut way to dismiss
all conspiracy notions." i agreed with his point in my response to his
statement about LNs, but i clarified MY question to which he responded was
not about LN's, i had asked about CTs, hence your incomplete quote of me,
which in full read " mabey so, but you responded to me(he was responding
to my question), and i was asking about CTs" try to follow next time
Shack, your looking foolish for no reason.
> > mabey so, but you responded to me, and i was asking about ct's.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
steve
wrote:
> The idea that "if Judyth is not telling the truth the whole CT angle would
> just fall apart" tells me two things--
well Shack im getting pretty used to you snipping what i say and trying
to twist it so that i sound like an idiot, although you are doing a poor
job of it. i did in fact say what you quote, but you are implting that i
said it about the whole CT community, so lets look at what i said in full.
i said "obviouslly you dont believe her, and i dont believe her(you and
Tony just cant get over the fact im not a LN), >>>>>>>>>>>but
some<<<<<<<<<< CTs just HAVE to believe her. like if Judyth is not telling
the truth the whole ct angle would just fall apart." the "but some" is
obviously refering to the die hard Judyth defenders whose life it seems
depends on her story being "true", at least thats how they act about it.
>
> 1) You know very little about CT positions; many CTs would find this a
> surprise.
like i said, if you want to take it out of context and imply i meant
the whole CT community you would have reason to say "i know very little,"
but i did say "but some" right before the quote you plucked out of
context, so your attempt to change what i said and call me stupid is
nothing but hot air from someone holding a grudge, because i disagree with
him. it shows what kind of character you have.
>
> 2) Your disdain for the "CT angle" is an admission that you support the
> WC. Sooner or later, most of Judyth's attackers fall into one of two
> camps:
again more hot air. where have i showed "distain for the CT angle?" can
you point it out? have i said that on ANY thread? that all CT's are
crackpots? nope, never did, and you cant even quote me OUT of
context(again) and prove that, because i never said it or implied it. your
shooting yourself in the foot agin Shack, you have no idea what i believe
or what i know, but keep making yourself look petty to the rest of the
group, im sure its doing wonders for your reputation.
>
> 1) WC supporters.
> 2) Garrison bashers.
when you imply that someone has to believe everything Garrison did or
said to be a CT you only show how ignorant you are Shack. are you saying
that if someone does not buy Garrisons theories that they cant be a CT?
please tell me you are not, because that would only tell me You know very
little about CT positions; many CTs would find this a surprise!
> Or both.
>
> Martin
>
> "steve" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
> The idea that "if Judyth is not telling the truth the whole CT angle would
> just fall apart" tells me two things--
>
> 1) You know very little about CT positions; many CTs would find this a
> surprise.
>
> 2) Your disdain for the "CT angle" is an admission that you support the
> WC. Sooner or later, most of Judyth's attackers fall into one of two
> camps:
>
> 1) WC supporters.
> 2) Garrison bashers.
> Or both.
>
In fact, Judyth's coming forward has been a breath of fresh air for
the stagnant 'research community'. The CTs who have been comfortable
concealing their disdain for Garrison now find themselves out in the
open in their attempts to discredit Judyth.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
John McAdams
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Jan 10, 4:06=A0pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>> The idea that "if Judyth is not telling the truth the whole CT angle would=
>
>> just fall apart" tells me two things--
>>
>> 1) You know very little about CT positions; many CTs would find this a
>> surprise.
>>
>> 2) Your disdain for the "CT angle" is an admission that you support the
>> WC. Sooner or later, most of Judyth's attackers fall into one of two
>> camps:
>>
>> 1) WC supporters.
>> 2) Garrison bashers.
>> Or both.
>>
>> Martin[...]
>
>In fact, Judyth's coming forward has been a breath of fresh air for
>the stagnant 'research community'. The CTs who have been comfortable
>concealing their disdain for Garrison now find themselves out in the
>open in their attempts to discredit Judyth.
>
Pamela, are you actually saying that conspiracists have been afraid to
criticize Garrison?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/buffs_on_jim.htm
Garrison critics have never been "in the closet."
Barb Junkkarinen
If all the CTs who find Judyth's tale not credible .... or even just
severely lacking in evidence & documentation are really LNs ... then
the conspiracy is bigger than anyone ever dreamed!
Maybe someday Pamela will choose to "unmask" some her claims and
actually discuss evidence.
I've always thought that the least likely sheep is the one who spends
all their time pointing at others and yelling "wolf"!
Barb :-)
j_kev...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> The idea that "if Judyth is not telling the truth the whole CT angle would
> just fall apart" tells me two things--
>
> 1) You know very little about CT positions; many CTs would find this a
> surprise.
>
> 2) Your disdain for the "CT angle" is an admission that you support the
> WC. Sooner or later, most of Judyth's attackers fall into one of two
> camps:
>
> 1) WC supporters.
> 2) Garrison bashers.
> Or both.
I, for one, would certainly dispute the manner in which Shakelford is here
attempting to apply such a stereotype to those who are critical of
Judyth's unsubstantiated incredible claims. It has been my observation
that those critical of Judyth's claims include all hard- nosed
researchers, whether they are LN's or CT's, who were wise enough not to
stake their reputations on said claims, and who care about the integrity
and credibility of the vast body of work being developed by the research
community.
J.K. Heflin
Barb Junkkarinen
If I wasn't so old, I'd offer to have your baby. :-)
j_kev...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 6, 11:45 am, steve <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 9:59 am, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 5, 9:34 am, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>
> > > > I haven't got a clue myself.
>
> > > > PF
>
> > > Interesting observation. It is my impression that this an indication
> > > that, for reasons they of course refuse to discuss, they find Judyth a
> > > threat to the clean and pristine LNT landscape.
>
> > iv said it once and i'll say it a thousand times. Judyth gives
> > everyone who thinks there may have been a conspiracy a bad name. i
> > will not let some newbie fall into Judyth's nonsense, looking to get
> > some insight into what might have happened, like i did when she first
> > came on the scene, only to shift through all her "mishmash" to
> > discover she had nothing to back her wacky claims up. no credible
> > evidence and no credible witness.
>
> I disagree. Judyth's coming forth has unmasked some of the sheep-in-
> wolves'-clothing, apologists pretending to be CTs.
This type of stereotyping is so transparent. It plays into the LNer's
hands by providing them a basis to paint CT's with the broad brush of
Judyth's unsubstantiated continually morphing incredible claims. I
propose we test the thesis by calling for CT's to chime in on the issue by
posting a brief response to the following question:
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Do you believe that Judyth's claims, were her "dramatic vehicle" (e.g.
book) to succeed in being Hollywood blockbusterized throughout the culture
-- as Stone's JFK was -- would further the cause of revealing the truth
about the assassination, or do you believe it would serve as a
unparallelled straw-man with which LNer's and their media assets could rip
the CT community to shreds?
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
For my part, I believe that if the mainstream were to be convinced that
Judyth's claims provide a large part of the basis for the thesis that
there was a conspiracy, it would take generations to repair the damage to
the progress made since 11/22/63.
This is
> significant in that it is now easier to define where sandbagging of CT
> research is coming from.
For this statement to be true, the CT community would, in it's entirety,
have to consist of three individuals, named Baker, Brown, and Shakelford
(there's a couple others, but I think you get my point).
> However, Judyth's existence is a threat to the apologists.
Judyth's claims, if Hollywood blockbusterized, would bring glory days to
the LNer's! Posner, Bugliosi, McAdams, and that whole crowd would be on
TV every day demolishing Judyth's claims. It would be a massacre. Can
you not see this? You really believe the continual morphing and switch
and duck revisionism would salvage such a debacle?
The myth
> they are attempting to float is evidence of that. You are reverting to
> part of the apologist myth about Judyth.
Please describe what you are talking about when referring to the
"apologist myth about Judyth". You certainly are not referring to our
constant refrain that "there is no evidence to support the incredible
continually morphing elements of the Judyth Vary Baker saga" are you? If
so, please explain in what way that is a myth.
> She does have documentation,
> both direct and circumstantial, and she does have Anna Lewis, who is a
> credible witness.
For the sake of argument, I would grant the possibility that Oswald and
Baker may have had some kind of intimate encounter(s). But even if that
were true, the most incredible claims, such as Baker's head popping up in
a great number of the mysteries of JFK assassination lore, remain
completely and totally without foundation. And where attempts have been
made to provide such foundation, they have collapsed under scrutiny.
Then after the claims are morphed, revised, and repackaged, they are
demolished yet again when subjected to scrutiny. This process goes on, and
on, and on, with the revised and repackaged Judyth saga becoming more
flawed with each generation. Don't you think it has become unmarketable by
this point?
As an aside: For a fair cut of the proceeds of a Hollywood blockbusterized
Judyth story, would you be willing to see CT research set back for several
generations?
J.K. Heflin
j_kev...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Jan 10, 4:06 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > The idea that "if Judyth is not telling the truth the whole CT angle would
> > just fall apart" tells me two things--
>
> > 1) You know very little about CT positions; many CTs would find this a
> > surprise.
>
> > 2) Your disdain for the "CT angle" is an admission that you support the
> > WC. Sooner or later, most of Judyth's attackers fall into one of two
> > camps:
>
> > 1) WC supporters.
> > 2) Garrison bashers.
> > Or both.
>
> > Martin[...]
>
> In fact, Judyth's coming forward has been a breath of fresh air for
> the stagnant 'research community'.
True in the sense that it has given the CT's a context in which to
disprove the claims of the Posner's and Bugliosi's that CT's
uncritically accept and promote any crackpot conspiracy theory that
comes along.
The CTs who have been comfortable
> concealing their disdain for Garrison now find themselves out in the
> open in their attempts to discredit Judyth.
This attempt to associate Judyth with Garrison, though a clever idea,
does not in any way elevate her credibility.
J.K. Heflin
Dave Reitzes
> On 10 Jan 2008 21:35:16 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >On Jan 6, 11:45=A0am, steve <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 6, 9:59=A0am, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 5, 9:34=A0am, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>
> >> > > I haven't got a clue myself.
>
> >> > > PF
>
> >> > Interesting observation. It is my impression that this an indication
> >> > that, for reasons they of course refuse to discuss, they find Judyth a
> >> > threat to the clean and pristine LNT landscape.
>
> >> =A0 =A0iv said it once and i'll say it a thousand times. Judyth gives
> >> everyone who thinks there may have been a conspiracy a bad name. i
> >> will not let some newbie fall into Judyth's nonsense, looking to get
> >> some insight into what might have happened, like i did when she first
> >> came on the scene, only to shift through all her "mishmash" to
> >> discover she had nothing to back her wacky claims up. no credible
> >> evidence and no credible witness.
>
> >I disagree. �Judyth's coming forth has unmasked some of the sheep-in-
> >wolves'-clothing, apologists pretending to be CTs. �This is
> >significant in that it is now easier to define where sandbagging of CT
> >research is coming from.
>
> Oh, my!
>
> Pamela is saying that people like Barb are *really* LNs, who are just
> pretending to be CTs.
Hmmm, where have I heard that one before?
> Seems the conspiracy is pretty big, doesn't it?
>
> .John
Let's just thank goodness she's not paranoid. Imagine what kind of
lunacy she'd be spouting then!
Dave
steve
> steve wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 10:27 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> steve wrote:
> >>> On Jan 9, 1:43 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> steve wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 5, 10:34 pm, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
> >>>>>> I haven't got a clue myself.
> >>>>>> PF
> >>>>> why are some CT's so obsessed with Judyth? the ones for AND the ones
> >>>>> against?
> >>>> Why are LNers so obsessed with Judyth? Answer: They think that debunking
> >>>> her is a shortcut way to dismiss all conspiracy notions.
> >>> mabey so, but you responded to me, and i was asking about ct's.
> >> I was turning your rhetoric back on you.
>
> > there was no rhetoric. i was asking a serious question. obviouslly you
> > dont believe her, and i dont believe her, but some ct's just HAVE to
> > believe her. like if Judyth is not telling the truth the whole ct angle
> > would just fall apart. or they need to believe her to connect all the
>
> You just confirmed a charge that I have made which some WC defenders deny.
> You want to discredit her as a shortcut way to deny any conspiracy.
geez dude, how many times do i have to say it? i do not believe the
warren report! and that was not what i was saying at all, i was asking
about die hard Judyth supporters, and why they feel the way they do, my
comment "but some ct's just HAVE to believe her. like if Judyth is not
telling the truth the whole ct angle would just fall apart. or they need
to believe her to connect all the" was speculation, and i was asking what
you thought the reason was that someone like a Pam would overlook all
common sense and buy into her story. you totally overlook the "but some" i
was just asking your opinion on the "some" and why they are so attached to
Judyth. you like Martin are someday going to have to accept that just
because i dont believe Baker does not mean i believe the WC.
>
> > dots. they believe her with nothing to really go on, just a lot of
> > hunches. you say you didnt believe it just from how absurd it was from the
> > beginning didnt you?
>
> The moment I heard that someone claimed to have been Oswald's lover.- Hide quoted text -
steve
> On Jan 6, 11:45 am, steve <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 9:59 am, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 5, 9:34 am, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>
> > > > I haven't got a clue myself.
>
> > > > PF
>
> > > Interesting observation. It is my impression that this an indication
> > > that, for reasons they of course refuse to discuss, they find Judyth a
> > > threat to the clean and pristine LNT landscape.
>
> > iv said it once and i'll say it a thousand times. Judyth gives
> > everyone who thinks there may have been a conspiracy a bad name. i
> > will not let some newbie fall into Judyth's nonsense, looking to get
> > some insight into what might have happened, like i did when she first
> > came on the scene, only to shift through all her "mishmash" to
> > discover she had nothing to back her wacky claims up. no credible
> > evidence and no credible witness.
>
> I disagree. Judyth's coming forth has unmasked some of the sheep-in-
> wolves'-clothing, apologists pretending to be CTs.
this kind of blanket statement shows how much you have become
attached to the Judyth fantasy.
> This is
> significant in that it is now easier to define where sandbagging of CT
> research is coming from.
ok Pam, whatever.
>
> However, Judyth's existence is a threat to the apologists.
well, since even Shack says there is no smoking gun, she can NEVR be
a threat to ANYONE, LN, or CT. you either believe her, or you dont.
is she a threat to Marsh?
> The myth
> they are attempting to float is evidence of that. You are reverting to
> part of the apologist myth about Judyth. She does have documentation,
> both direct and circumstantial, and she does have Anna Lewis, who is a
> credible witness.
are you calling Marsh an apologist? you do know he thinks Judyth is
lying 87% of the time dont you?
steve
well there is no direct evidence she "hung around" Oswald for one,
but i get your point.
steve
wrote:
> On Jan 10, 4:06 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > The idea that "if Judyth is not telling the truth the whole CT angle would
> > just fall apart" tells me two things--
>
> > 1) You know very little about CT positions; many CTs would find this a
> > surprise.
>
> > 2) Your disdain for the "CT angle" is an admission that you support the
> > WC. Sooner or later, most of Judyth's attackers fall into one of two
> > camps:
>
> > 1) WC supporters.
> > 2) Garrison bashers.
> > Or both.
>
> > Martin[...]
>
> In fact, Judyth's coming forward has been a breath of fresh air for
> the stagnant 'research community'.
right, im sure there are teams of people tracking down all the new
leads Shackelford says she provided.
> The CTs who have been comfortable
> concealing their disdain for Garrison now find themselves out in the
> open in their attempts to discredit Judyth.
i thought you said that someone couldnt be a CT if they didnt
believe everthing Garrison said?
>
> Pamela McElwain-Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com
steve
wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:38:39 GMT, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John
>
>
>
>
>
> McAdams) wrote:
> >On 10 Jan 2008 21:35:16 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
mabey anyone who believes or supports the Judyth Baker hoax, is
actually a LN trying to tarnish all CTs.
Dixie M Dea
Re: Why are some LNs so obsessed by Judyth?
Group: alt.assassination.jfk Date: Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 9:47pm From:
barbRE...@comcast.net (Barb Junkkarinen)
J.K. Heflin
__________________________________
That is hillarious Barb! Well, I may also be old, but I wouldn't go that
far. However, I most definitely appreciate J.K. Heflins remarks.
_________
Dixie
Barb Junkkarinen
steve
> Re: Why are some LNs so obsessed by Judyth?
>
> Group: alt.assassination.jfk Date: Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 9:47pm From:
i think everyone with a clear head when it comes to things Judyth
appriciates his remarks.
>
> _________
> Dixie
steve
wrote:
> The sentence "you responded to me and I was asking about CTs" implied that
> you didn't consider Tony a CT. Don't play dumb, steve.
"asking about," notice i didnt say asking a, or seeking an answer
from, i said "asking about" i meant what i wrote, you just cant seem
comprehend. its not my fault that you dont know what your talking
about, even though you read the post but dont understand it.
> > mabey so, but you responded to me, and i was asking about ct's.- Hide quoted text -
Martin Shackelford
evidence here
of what you know, steve.
I've never said that one has to believe Garrison to be a CT, nor am I
unaware that
certain CTs have been Garrison bashers (David Lifton is one example).
You are certainly making a great many foolish assumptions.
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0460890f-6007-4225...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:c0cde0e9-8f5f-40a4...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
steve
> steve wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 10:27 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> steve wrote:
> >>> On Jan 9, 1:43 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> steve wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 5, 10:34 pm, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
> >>>>>> I haven't got a clue myself.
> >>>>>> PF
> >>>>> why are some CT's so obsessed with Judyth? the ones for AND the ones
> >>>>> against?
> >>>> Why are LNers so obsessed with Judyth? Answer: They think that debunking
> >>>> her is a shortcut way to dismiss all conspiracy notions.
> >>> mabey so, but you responded to me, and i was asking about ct's.
> >> I was turning your rhetoric back on you.
>
> > there was no rhetoric. i was asking a serious question. obviouslly you
> > dont believe her, and i dont believe her, but some ct's just HAVE to
> > believe her. like if Judyth is not telling the truth the whole ct angle
> > would just fall apart. or they need to believe her to connect all the
>
> You just confirmed a charge that I have made which some WC defenders deny.
> You want to discredit her as a shortcut way to deny any conspiracy.
i dont want to discredit her, she and the team have done that
themselves. i just point out where for clarification. it has nothing
to do with denying conspiracy, iv never done that, and you cant point
to where i have. thats your assumption, your entitled to it, but your
wrong.
>
> > dots. they believe her with nothing to really go on, just a lot of
> > hunches. you say you didnt believe it just from how absurd it was from the
> > beginning didnt you?
>
> The moment I heard that someone claimed to have been Oswald's lover.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
well are you trying to discredit the whole CT community by saying
her account is ridiculous from day one?
steve
wrote:
> The idea that "if Judyth is not telling the truth the whole CT angle would
> just fall apart" tells me two things--
the idea of you snipping my quote to make it seem like i was talking
about everyone tells me your pretty desperate.
>
> 1) You know very little about CT positions; many CTs would find this a
> surprise.
>
> 2) Your disdain for the "CT angle" is an admission that you support the
> WC. Sooner or later, most of Judyth's attackers fall into one of two
> camps:
>
> 1) WC supporters.
> 2) Garrison bashers.
> Or both.
seems that your little post meant to attack me has blown up the
thread. its pretty obvious to everyone else reading what i was talking
about here Shack, why is it that you dont seem to comprehend what
everyone else has. they seem to know what i was saying, but then
again, they arent grasping at straws to attack someone who disagrees
with them. your getting pretty petty Shack, you should try to think
with a clearer head instead of trying to make it seem like your
sooooooooooooooooooo much smarter and knowledgeable about the case
than me. you only got yourself into trouble doing that.
>
> Martin
>
> "steve" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cabdbd13-e7eb-423f...@s27g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 10, 10:27 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > steve wrote:
> > > On Jan 9, 1:43 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> steve wrote:
> > >>> On Jan 5, 10:34 pm, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
> > >>>> I haven't got a clue myself.
> > >>>> PF
> > >>> why are some CT's so obsessed with Judyth? the ones for AND the ones
> > >>> against?
> > >> Why are LNers so obsessed with Judyth? Answer: They think that
> > >> debunking
> > >> her is a shortcut way to dismiss all conspiracy notions.
>
> > > mabey so, but you responded to me, and i was asking about ct's.
>
> > I was turning your rhetoric back on you.
>
> there was no rhetoric. i was asking a serious question. obviouslly you
> dont believe her, and i dont believe her, but some ct's just HAVE to
> believe her. like if Judyth is not telling the truth the whole ct angle
> would just fall apart. or they need to believe her to connect all the
steve
wrote:
> I do know some of what you believe, but clearly there has been little
> evidence here
> of what you know, steve.
you only know what i believe on Baker, glad you admitted as much. as
far as what i know, you are ignorant of that, just as you are on what
my real name is.
> I've never said that one has to believe Garrison to be a CT, nor am I
> unaware that
> certain CTs have been Garrison bashers (David Lifton is one example).
> You are certainly making a great many foolish assumptions.
the only one making foolish assumptions is you Martin. you speak out
of both sides of your mouth. you call me ignorant in one post, then you
admit that you only know some of what i believe, and eveyone knows that
the only thing you know about me is that i dont agree with you on Baker.
yet you claim im just sooooooooooooooo stupid and dont understand who is a
LN or CT, and that i dont know anything about the case. who is making
assumptions? who is ignorant? you are in the minority on this one Shack,
after all, you bought the Judyth Baker nonsense hook line and sinker, that
makes YOU seem ignorant to everyone with a little common sense. i can take
insults from someone in your category all day, your credibility is stuck
to defending a false "witness" who tried to pull a fast one on the whole
research community, you should be ashamed.
> > beginning didnt you?- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
Yes, I can point to where you have. In your above sentence where you
state that because she is discredited,"the whole ct angle would just
fall apart."
QED
>
>
>>> dots. they believe her with nothing to really go on, just a lot of
>>> hunches. you say you didnt believe it just from how absurd it was from the
>>> beginning didnt you?
>> The moment I heard that someone claimed to have been Oswald's lover.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> well are you trying to discredit the whole CT community by saying
> her account is ridiculous from day one?
>
Nice try, but I think most people here as smart enough to figure out
your tactics. There are many conspiracy theories out there. Just because
one is wrong does not mean that all are wrong. Mine is right.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 11, 5:05 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> The sentence "you responded to me and I was asking about CTs" implied that
>> you didn't consider Tony a CT. Don't play dumb, steve.
>
>
> "asking about," notice i didnt say asking a, or seeking an answer
> from, i said "asking about" i meant what i wrote, you just cant seem
> comprehend. its not my fault that you dont know what your talking
> about, even though you read the post but dont understand it.
>
You didn't seem to catch onto my trick of turning your rhetoric back on
you, ala Peewee Herman's, "I know you are, but what am I?"
Anthony Marsh
I don't believe Judyth's story about having a relationship with Oswald,
but I do not think people should be allowed to misstate the evidence in
their attempts to debunk her.
Anthony Marsh
But you have never once said squat about anything being wrong with the WC
or indicated why you believe in conspiracy. Hence I can only conclude that
you accept the WC and reject conspiracy.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
> On 10 Jan 2008 21:35:16 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 6, 11:45=A0am, steve <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 6, 9:59=A0am, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> > > I haven't got a clue myself.
>
> >> > > PF
>
> >> > that, for reasons they of course refuse to discuss, they find Judyth a
> >> > threat to the clean and pristine LNT landscape.
>
> >> =A0 =A0iv said it once and i'll say it a thousand times. Judyth gives
> >> everyone who thinks there may have been a conspiracy a bad name. i
> >> will not let some newbie fall into Judyth's nonsense, looking to get
> >> some insight into what might have happened, like i did when she first
> >> came on the scene, only to shift through all her "mishmash" to
> >> discover she had nothing to back her wacky claims up. no credible
> >> evidence and no credible witness.
>
> >I disagree. Judyth's coming forth has unmasked some of the sheep-in-
> >wolves'-clothing, apologists pretending to be CTs. This is
> >significant in that it is now easier to define where sandbagging of CT
> >research is coming from.
>
> Oh, my!
>
> Pamela is saying that people like Barb are *really* LNs, who are just
> pretending to be CTs.
Why are you referencing Barb?
>
> Seems the conspiracy is pretty big, doesn't it?
>
Why don't you clarify it for me?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:38:39 GMT, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John
>
>
>
>
>
> McAdams) wrote:
> >On 10 Jan 2008 21:35:16 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
Such imaginative dissimulation. Not really relevant, though.
>
> Maybe someday Pamela will choose to "unmask" some her claims and
> actually discuss evidence.
"Evidence" such as the myth that Judyth made everything up and is,
what did you say, a 'crock'?
> I've always thought that the least likely sheep is the one who spends
> all their time pointing at others and yelling "wolf"!
John brought your name into this, Barb. Are you directing this to
him?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Anthony Marsh
> On 10 Jan 2008 21:51:49 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
> <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 10, 4:06=A0pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>> The idea that "if Judyth is not telling the truth the whole CT angle would=
>>> just fall apart" tells me two things--
>>>
>>> 1) You know very little about CT positions; many CTs would find this a
>>> surprise.
>>>
>>> 2) Your disdain for the "CT angle" is an admission that you support the
>>> WC. Sooner or later, most of Judyth's attackers fall into one of two
>>> camps:
>>>
>>> 1) WC supporters.
>>> 2) Garrison bashers.
>>> Or both.
>>>
>> In fact, Judyth's coming forward has been a breath of fresh air for
>> the stagnant 'research community'. The CTs who have been comfortable
>> concealing their disdain for Garrison now find themselves out in the
>> open in their attempts to discredit Judyth.
>>
>
> criticize Garrison?
>
Well, few (read me) were brave enough to criticize him to his face.
Lots disagree with various theories he proposed or endorsed.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/buffs_on_jim.htm
>
> Garrison critics have never been "in the closet."
>
The good old divide and conquer strategy.
> .John
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
steve
guess what Bub, i said "but some" i did not say all. we can all
guess very easily who the "some" are.
> QED
>
>
>
> >>> dots. they believe her with nothing to really go on, just a lot of
> >>> hunches. you say you didnt believe it just from how absurd it was from the
> >>> beginning didnt you?
> >> The moment I heard that someone claimed to have been Oswald's lover.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > well are you trying to discredit the whole CT community by saying
> > her account is ridiculous from day one?
>
> Nice try, but I think most people here as smart enough to figure out
> your tactics.
not a tactic dude
> There are many conspiracy theories out there. Just because
> one is wrong does not mean that all are wrong.
i know that.
>Mine is right.- Hide quoted text -
steve
> steve wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 5:05 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >> The sentence "you responded to me and I was asking about CTs" implied that
> >> you didn't consider Tony a CT. Don't play dumb, steve.
>
> > "asking about," notice i didnt say asking a, or seeking an answer
> > from, i said "asking about" i meant what i wrote, you just cant seem
> > comprehend. its not my fault that you dont know what your talking
> > about, even though you read the post but dont understand it.
>
> You didn't seem to catch onto my trick of turning your rhetoric back on
> you, ala Peewee Herman's, "I know you are, but what am I?"
>
no, i did catch it, it was a question though, thought i could get a
straight answer, guess i cant.
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
steve
> Dixie M Dea wrote:
>
> > Re: Why are some LNs so obsessed by Judyth?
>
> > Group: alt.assassination.jfk Date: Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 9:47pm From:
> > On 11 Jan 2008 00:34:28 -0500, j_keven...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 3:06 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > The idea that "if Judyth is not telling the truth the whole CT angle
> > would just fall apart" tells me two things--
> > 1) You know very little about CT positions; many CTs would find this a
> > surprise.
> > 2) Your disdain for the "CT angle" is an admission that you support the
> > WC. Sooner or later, most of Judyth's attackers fall into one of two
> > camps:
> > 1) WC supporters.
> > 2) Garrison bashers.
> > Or both.
>
> > I, for one, would certainly dispute the manner in which Shakelford is
> > here attempting to apply such a stereotype to those who are critical of
> > Judyth's unsubstantiated incredible claims. It has been my observation
> > that those critical of Judyth's claims include all hard- nosed
> > researchers, whether they are LN's or CT's, who were wise enough not to
> > stake their reputations on said claims, and who care about the integrity
> > and credibility of the vast body of work being developed by the research
> > community.
>
> I don't believe Judyth's story about having a relationship with Oswald,
> but I do not think people should be allowed to misstate the evidence in
> their attempts to debunk her.
you have made that clear.
>
>
>
> > J.K. Heflin
>
> > If I wasn't so old, I'd offer to have your baby. :-)
>
> > __________________________________
>
> > That is hillarious Barb! Well, I may also be old, but I wouldn't go that
> > far. However, I most definitely appreciate J.K. Heflins remarks.
>
> > _________
> > Dixie- Hide quoted text -
steve
sure i have, i already said they relied too much on the nut Hoover.
ditto for the CIA. and they said Ruby didnt have any significant links
to Organized crime. if thats not 3 major things wrong i dont know what
is.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> dots. they believe her with nothing to really go on, just a lot of
> >>> hunches. you say you didnt believe it just from how absurd it was from the
> >>> beginning didnt you?
> >> The moment I heard that someone claimed to have been Oswald's lover.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
steve
wrote:
she made every important part of her fantasy up, unless you have
some hidden evidence no one else has seen.
>
> > I've always thought that the least likely sheep is the one who spends
> > all their time pointing at others and yelling "wolf"!
>
> John brought your name into this, Barb. Are you directing this to
> him?
>
> Pamela McElwain-Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com- Hide quoted text -
j_kev...@yahoo.com
> Dixie M Dea wrote:
>
> > Re: Why are some LNs so obsessed by Judyth?
>
> > Group: alt.assassination.jfk Date: Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 9:47pm From:
> > On 11 Jan 2008 00:34:28 -0500, j_keven...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 3:06 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > The idea that "if Judyth is not telling the truth the whole CT angle
> > would just fall apart" tells me two things--
> > 1) You know very little about CT positions; many CTs would find this a
> > surprise.
> > 2) Your disdain for the "CT angle" is an admission that you support the
> > WC. Sooner or later, most of Judyth's attackers fall into one of two
> > camps:
> > 1) WC supporters.
> > 2) Garrison bashers.
> > Or both.
>
> > I, for one, would certainly dispute the manner in which Shakelford is
> > here attempting to apply such a stereotype to those who are critical of
> > Judyth's unsubstantiated incredible claims. It has been my observation
> > that those critical of Judyth's claims include all hard- nosed
> > researchers, whether they are LN's or CT's, who were wise enough not to
> > stake their reputations on said claims, and who care about the integrity
> > and credibility of the vast body of work being developed by the research
> > community.
>
> I don't believe Judyth's story about having a relationship with Oswald,
> but I do not think people should be allowed to misstate the evidence in
> their attempts to debunk her.
Obvious employment of the Straw Man fallacy here.
>
> > J.K. Heflin
>
> > If I wasn't so old, I'd offer to have your baby. :-)
>
> > __________________________________
>
> > That is hillarious Barb! Well, I may also be old, but I wouldn't go that
> > far. However, I most definitely appreciate J.K. Heflins remarks.
>
> > _________
> > Dixie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Nope ... I did't say *Judyth* is a crock. I said I think her *story*
is a crock.
>
>> I've always thought that the least likely sheep is the one who spends
>> all their time pointing at others and yelling "wolf"!
>
>John brought your name into this, Barb. Are you directing this to
>him?
Yeah, right, Pamela .... ROTFL.
Barb :-)
>
>Pamela McElwain-Brown
>www.in-broad-daylight.com
j_kev...@yahoo.com
wrote:
This is referencing the logical conclusions of the rhetorical devices
you are using to suggest there is some sort of wide-ranging
underground conspiracy in the research community dedicated to keeping
the world from being illuminated by Judyth's Earth shattering
revelations about LHO and the Kennedy assassination.
Presumed by it is a state of affairs whereby CT's can be divided into
two categories: CT's who both believe in, and who are on a crusade to
educate the world about both the Garrison investigation and Judyth's
cloak and dagger exploits, and CT's who believe Garrison and Judyth to
be frauds, and who covertly "sandbag" the first category of CT's
(thereby suggesting the possibility that most CT's are an element of a
huge conspiracy in which most CT's are actually covert disinformation
specialists, since the first category of CT's is made up of only 3 or
4 people [Judyth and her supporters]).
This is a false dichotomy, dividing up the CT community into a huge
group of evil Judyth/Garrison bashers, and a tiny rag-tag group of
pure and noble Judyth/Garrison supporters, heroically struggling to
bring the Judyth/Garrison truth to the world. Judyth, Shackelford,
and you would, of course, be the major charactors in such a drama,
same easily being conceptualized as the story line for a Hollywood
blockbuster entitled JFK II.
But such a dichotomy simply doesn't wash. Nor does the notion that
only CT's who think Garrison was a fraud also reject Judyth's yarns.
That would basically mean there are only a handful of CT's who don't
believe Garrison was a fraud, since only a few buy into the Judyth
saga. This kind of dichotomy leaves me and many others without a
category to fit into.
J.K. Heflin
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
If it really were the case that you simply think Judyth's 'story is a
crock' then why do you seem compelled to jump into every post about
Judyth and then attempt do dismiss her credentials?
> >> I've always thought that the least likely sheep is the one who spends
> >> all their time pointing at others and yelling "wolf"!
>
> >John brought your name into this, Barb. Are you directing this to
> >him?
>
> Yeah, right, Pamela .... ROTFL.
>
John outed you, Barb. ROTFL yourself.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
curtjester1
> On Jan 11, 9:50 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6 Jan, 12:45, steve <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 6, 9:59 am, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 5, 9:34 am, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>
> > > > > I haven't got a clue myself.
>
> > > > > PF
>
> > > > Interesting observation. It is my impression that this an indication
> > > > that, for reasons they of course refuse to discuss, they find Judyth a
> > > > threat to the clean and pristine LNT landscape.
>
> > > everyone who thinks there may have been a conspiracy a bad name. i
> > > will not let some newbie fall into Judyth's nonsense, looking to get
> > > some insight into what might have happened, like i did when she first
> > > came on the scene, only to shift through all her "mishmash" to
> > > discover she had nothing to back her wacky claims up. no credible
> > > evidence and no credible witness.
>
> > something to say about it. What's one more?
>
> well there is no direct evidence she "hung around" Oswald for one,
> but i get your point.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, as a side note, the LHO that went to Russia was the TSBD LHO, and he
wasn't apt to drink or fool around with women, while the one born in New
Orleans, that was stateside during that time, liked to party, fight, and
get involved with women. And if one works in the same company.....?
CJ
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
The more of her "evidence" I've seen, the more convinced I became that
her story is a crock.
I post in Judyth threads because I choose too. :-) One reason is
because I have this thing about speculation/assumption and blind faith
declaring as fact that which not only has not proven to be fact ...
but has been shown to be in conflict with known facts.
And you? You're sure not here to actually discuss the evidence.
>
>
>> >> I've always thought that the least likely sheep is the one who spends
>> >> all their time pointing at others and yelling "wolf"!
>>
>> >John brought your name into this, Barb. Are you directing this to
>> >him?
>>
>> Yeah, right, Pamela .... ROTFL.
>>
>
>John outed you, Barb. ROTFL yourself.
Yeah, right, Pamela.
It's an act, right? It's GOT to be...
>
>Pamela McElwain-Brown
>www.in-broad-daylight.com
Anthony Marsh
All of those objections can be held by a WC defender. You have never
offered any evidence of conspiracy. Hence you are a WC defender. Even
Belin, the leading WC defender raised the same objections as you have.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
> This is referencing the logical conclusions of the rhetorical devices
> you are using to suggest there is some sort of wide-ranging
> underground conspiracy in the research community dedicated to keeping
> the world from being illuminated by Judyth's Earth shattering
> revelations about LHO and the Kennedy assassination.
You are jumping into the thread where John outs Barb and then complains
about the size of the conspiracy. Your statement then does not follow
logically.
However, since you mention it, I am not using 'rhetorical devices'. I am
simply making observations after having been involved in the Judyth- fray
for such a long time. You can't deny me that right.
>
> Presumed by it is a state of affairs whereby CT's can be divided into
> two categories: CT's who both believe in, and who are on a crusade to
> educate the world about both the Garrison investigation and Judyth's
> cloak and dagger exploits, and CT's who believe Garrison and Judyth to
> be frauds, and who covertly "sandbag" the first category of CT's
> (thereby suggesting the possibility that most CT's are an element of a
> huge conspiracy in which most CT's are actually covert disinformation
> specialists, since the first category of CT's is made up of only 3 or
> 4 people [Judyth and her supporters]).
This is all your own thinking and has nothing to do with my
observations. You'll have to figure it out yourself.
If you want to talk about the unmasking of sheep-in-wolves-clothing in the
CT community, I consider Judyth a catalyst for that, again, based on my
observations. I don't know why this seems to be the case. However, the
current line of distinction seems to be pro-or anti- Judyth, rather than
CT or LNT per se.
>
> This is a false dichotomy, dividing up the CT community into a huge
> group of evil Judyth/Garrison bashers, and a tiny rag-tag group of
> pure and noble Judyth/Garrison supporters, heroically struggling to
> bring the Judyth/Garrison truth to the world.
Are you trying to create a strawman here? I am observing as to what I
am perceiving in this situation. It is you who is jumping to
conclusions.
> Judyth, Shackelford,
> and you would, of course, be the major charactors in such a drama,
> same easily being conceptualized as the story line for a Hollywood
> blockbuster entitled JFK II.
Are you suggesting that there should be a book about the book?
Hmmm...
>
> But such a dichotomy simply doesn't wash. Nor does the notion that
> only CT's who think Garrison was a fraud also reject Judyth's yarns.
It's not my problem.
> That would basically mean there are only a handful of CT's who don't
> believe Garrison was a fraud, since only a few buy into the Judyth
> saga. This kind of dichotomy leaves me and many others without a
> category to fit into.
>
I agree. You figure it out. Your strawman
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Pamela McElwain-Brown
What are you talking about? Judyth has documentation connecting her
to LHO and inducing cancer in mice.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Go back to what John said and read for comprehension, Pamela. John
didn't "out" me ...that's hilarious ... but your thinking that rather
reveals something about you ....uh ... logically. ROTFL.
>
>However, since you mention it, I am not using 'rhetorical devices'. I am
>simply making observations after having been involved in the Judyth- fray
>for such a long time. You can't deny me that right.
But you're running all over the newsgroup criticizing me for being
involved in Judyth threads! Love it! I'm merely making observations
myself ... having been involved in the Judyth fray for such a long
time. :-)
This one's a keeper ... keep squawking about me, will ya ... I can't
wait to post it in response!
>
>>
>> Presumed by it is a state of affairs whereby CT's can be divided into
>> two categories: CT's who both believe in, and who are on a crusade to
>> educate the world about both the Garrison investigation and Judyth's
>> cloak and dagger exploits, and CT's who believe Garrison and Judyth to
>> be frauds, and who covertly "sandbag" the first category of CT's
>> (thereby suggesting the possibility that most CT's are an element of a
>> huge conspiracy in which most CT's are actually covert disinformation
>> specialists, since the first category of CT's is made up of only 3 or
>> 4 people [Judyth and her supporters]).
>
>This is all your own thinking and has nothing to do with my
>observations. You'll have to figure it out yourself.
>
>If you want to talk about the unmasking of sheep-in-wolves-clothing in the
>CT community, I consider Judyth a catalyst for that, again, based on my
>observations. I don't know why this seems to be the case. However, the
>current line of distinction seems to be pro-or anti- Judyth, rather than
>CT or LNT per se.
Only on the subject of Judyth. She doesn't have anything to do with
anything else.
>
>>
>> This is a false dichotomy, dividing up the CT community into a huge
>> group of evil Judyth/Garrison bashers, and a tiny rag-tag group of
>> pure and noble Judyth/Garrison supporters, heroically struggling to
>> bring the Judyth/Garrison truth to the world.
>
>Are you trying to create a strawman here? I am observing as to what I
>am perceiving in this situation. It is you who is jumping to
>conclusions.
He's got logic and acute considered observation on his side, Pamela.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Having worked at Reilly the summer of 1963, along with a hundred other
people, in no way forges a connection between Judyth and LHO.
Ask your self HOW it does ... then please tell us ... without dramatic
vehicles, speculation, assumption, etc.
steve
so you can object to things the WC did and concluded, and still be
a defender huh? whatever.
steve
connecting her to the same company he worked for.
> and inducing cancer in mice.
so what?
>
> Pamela McElwain-Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com- Hide quoted text -
steve
Judyth has documentation connecting her TO REILY, that may be the
same company he worked for, but that is not mean they even knew each
other.
> and inducing cancer in mice.
so what?
steve
wrote:
she cant tell us how it proves they knew each other. she phrases it to
sound a lot more impressive than it is. they worked at the same place,
WOW. still not sure how the science record as a student is documentation
of anything, but Pam seems to think its important for some reason, mabey
she could explain that one while shes at it.
Martin Shackelford
Both Judyth and I have criticized as well as praised Garrison, depending on
the
specifics. Howard once summarized the differences between Garrison and
Judyth as "right people, wrong plot."
The fantasy "dichotomy" you describe is your own invention. I've never
subscribed to any such idiocy.
Also, no one has claimed that ONLY Garrison bashers have been critical
of Judyth--that's just more oversimplification.
As for what category you belong in, we can all decide that for ourselves.
Martin
<j_kev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:14b465da-7e46-4be6...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b0cac8e3-044a-4d11...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
j_kev...@yahoo.com
>
> > This is referencing the logical conclusions of the rhetorical devices
> > you are using to suggest there is some sort of wide-ranging
> > underground conspiracy in the research community dedicated to keeping
> > the world from being illuminated by Judyth's Earth shattering
> > revelations about LHO and the Kennedy assassination.
>
> You are jumping into the thread where John outs Barb and then complains
> about the size of the conspiracy. Your statement then does not follow
> logically.
Pease elaborate. I'm not following you at all.
>
> However, since you mention it, I am not using 'rhetorical devices'. I am
> simply making observations after having been involved in the Judyth- fray
> for such a long time. You can't deny me that right.
>
> > Presumed by it is a state of affairs whereby CT's can be divided into
> > two categories: CT's who both believe in, and who are on a crusade to
> > educate the world about both the Garrison investigation and Judyth's
> > cloak and dagger exploits, and CT's who believe Garrison and Judyth to
> > be frauds, and who covertly "sandbag" the first category of CT's
> > (thereby suggesting the possibility that most CT's are an element of a
> > huge conspiracy in which most CT's are actually covert disinformation
> > specialists, since the first category of CT's is made up of only 3 or
> > 4 people [Judyth and her supporters]).
>
> This is all your own thinking and has nothing to do with my
> observations. You'll have to figure it out yourself.
Please give me some idea of the reasoning you are employing to make
such a distinction.
>
> If you want to talk about the unmasking of sheep-in-wolves-clothing in the
> CT community, I consider Judyth a catalyst for that, again, based on my
> observations. I don't know why this seems to be the case. However, the
> current line of distinction seems to be pro-or anti- Judyth, rather than
> CT or LNT per se.
>
> > This is a false dichotomy, dividing up the CT community into a huge
> > group of evil Judyth/Garrison bashers, and a tiny rag-tag group of
> > pure and noble Judyth/Garrison supporters, heroically struggling to
> > bring the Judyth/Garrison truth to the world.
>
> Are you trying to create a strawman here? I am observing as to what I
> am perceiving in this situation. It is you who is jumping to
> conclusions.
I actually have given some fairly elaborate and detailed responses to
conclusory statements made by you. You respond with more vague
conclusions. I'm not following you at all; not a mindreader.
>
> > Judyth, Shackelford,
> > and you would, of course, be the major charactors in such a drama,
> > same easily being conceptualized as the story line for a Hollywood
> > blockbuster entitled JFK II.
>
> Are you suggesting that there should be a book about the book?
> Hmmm...
More PR work for you there. Tempting, isn't it? Though I have a
feeling this has occurred to you before.
>
> > But such a dichotomy simply doesn't wash. Nor does the notion that
> > only CT's who think Garrison was a fraud also reject Judyth's yarns.
>
> It's not my problem.
You have no interest in defending, or further expanding upon your
earlier statements? It's just not your problem? Still not following
you...
>
> > That would basically mean there are only a handful of CT's who don't
> > believe Garrison was a fraud, since only a few buy into the Judyth
> > saga. This kind of dichotomy leaves me and many others without a
> > category to fit into.
>
> I agree. You figure it out. Your strawman
Does it make any difference to you whether anyone can understand you?
Is it just me, or can anyone else reconcile those three brief
contradictory sentences with each other, much less with the paragraph
to which they are offered as a response. Please respond with
something intelligible.
J.K.
> Pamela McElwain-Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com- Hide quoted text -
>
j_kev...@yahoo.com
Okay... You evidently attach some kind of Earth shattering conclusion
to this. Please illuminate us on what that might be.
Anthony Marsh
No one can prove that. It just seems likely.
Anthony Marsh
Brilliant. So you don't even know anyone at the company where you work?
j_kev...@yahoo.com
What evidence is being misstated?
> > J.K. Heflin
>
> > If I wasn't so old, I'd offer to have your baby. :-)
>
> > __________________________________
>
> > That is hillarious Barb! Well, I may also be old, but I wouldn't go that
> > far. However, I most definitely appreciate J.K. Heflins remarks.
>
> > _________
> > Dixie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Nor the schools you attend. Nor the military. I would have to slot
that as an apologist stance.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
steve
Tony, im retired. before i decided to work for myself and had a job as a
teenager it was for a company with 3 people. how long did these 2 work at
the coffee co? and they had 100 people there? and many people didnt
remember Oswald according to Martin, and Oswald was not known for hanging
out with co workers, and he spent his spare time hanging with Alba(who buy
the way knows nothing about Judyth). do you consider laying eyes on
someone "knowing" them?
>
>
>
>
>
> >> and inducing cancer in mice.
>
> > so what?
>
> >> Pamela McElwain-Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
Looks like you're off into the wind, blowing straw, rather than simply
acknowledging what I am saying.
Judyth and Lee worked at Reily. They were hired the same day. The
question then is how well they knew each other.
Judyth's documentation regarding inducing cancer in mice is unusual, to
say the least. Ferrie's preoccupation with cancer, and his involvement
with mice is intriguing. These are areas to be investigated.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Judyth deserves to be treated with respect. She didn't have to make
things up because she was there and has experiences to share.
Barb refuses to acknowledge this, and instead obsessively hops into every
thread with fluff. John created a page in which he refuses to acknowledge
this also. If Judyth is treated with respect as a witness, they seem to
think something has been lost.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2008 00:34:28 -0500, j_keven...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 10, 3:06 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> >wrote:
> >> The idea that "if Judyth is not telling the truth the whole CT angle would
> >> just fall apart" tells me two things--
>
> >> 1) You know very little about CT positions; many CTs would find this a
> >> surprise.
>
> >> 2) Your disdain for the "CT angle" is an admission that you support the
> >> WC. Sooner or later, most of Judyth's attackers fall into one of two
> >> camps:
>
> >> 1) WC supporters.
> >> 2) Garrison bashers.
> >> Or both.
>
> >I, for one, would certainly dispute the manner in which Shakelford is here
> >attempting to apply such a stereotype to those who are critical of
> >Judyth's unsubstantiated incredible claims. It has been my observation
> >that those critical of Judyth's claims include all hard- nosed
> >researchers, whether they are LN's or CT's, who were wise enough not to
> >stake their reputations on said claims, and who care about the integrity
> >and credibility of the vast body of work being developed by the research
> >community.
>
>
> If I wasn't so old, I'd offer to have your baby. :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
Ewwwwww. Where are the mods when you need them?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Pamela McElwain-Brown
> On 10 Jan 2008 21:51:49 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
>
>
>
>
> <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 10, 4:06=A0pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> >wrote:
> >> The idea that "if Judyth is not telling the truth the whole CT angle would=
>
> >> just fall apart" tells me two things--
>
> >> 1) You know very little about CT positions; many CTs would find this a
> >> surprise.
>
> >> 2) Your disdain for the "CT angle" is an admission that you support the
> >> WC. Sooner or later, most of Judyth's attackers fall into one of two
> >> camps:
>
> >> 1) WC supporters.
> >> 2) Garrison bashers.
> >> Or both.
>
>
> >In fact, Judyth's coming forward has been a breath of fresh air for
> >the stagnant 'research community'. The CTs who have been comfortable
> >concealing their disdain for Garrison now find themselves out in the
> >open in their attempts to discredit Judyth.
>
> Pamela, are you actually saying that conspiracists have been afraid to
> criticize Garrison?
"Afraid?" I think they may have been comfortable in their little worlds
thinking Garrison had been sufficiently buried until Judyth came along.
Then, it seems the outrage began to intensify, and to be focused on her.
Just look at Lifton's outrage, for example. Did Judyth really push all
his buttons on her own, or is his reaction also from his fury at Garrison?
Then there's also Reitzes, whose web pages on Garrison may appear at first
glance to be objective, but in fact are quite negative. His outrage over
Judyth's coming forward is reflected in the tone of his page on Judyth.
Is there a connection?
Of course, Judyth is referencing David Ferrie, David Lewis, Jack Martin,
and the entire cast of the Garrison investigation, so perhaps she's
dumping salt in their old wounds.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
steve
let us know when the investigation is done and you have something more
concrete instead of, she worked at reily, and worked with cancer as a
student.
>
> Pamela McElwain-Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com- Hide quoted text -
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Lately I have been hopping to reply to all your posts saying myself,
or others, do not acknowledge Judyth's "credentials" as having worked
at Reily's at the same time as LHO and having induced cancer in mice.
I have acknowledged it.
Everybody who posts in the judyth thread have acknowledged it.
How can people make it any plainer so that you can comprehend it and
stop repeating the same crap in every post???
> John created a page in which he refuses to acknowledge
>this also. If Judyth is treated with respect as a witness, they seem to
>think something has been lost.
Baloney.
>
>Pamela McElwain-Brown
>www.in-broad-daylight.com
Barb Junkkarinen
claiming myself and others do not acknowledge Judyth's "credentials"
as having worked at Reily the same time LHO did, was even hirred on
the same day ...and that Judyth induced cancer in mice.
Everybody who posts in the Judyth threads that I can think of has
"acknowledged" this numerous times. I know I have, but that doesn't
stop her repeat repeat repeat assertions. She posts little else!
So let's help Pamela out ... if you acknowledge the above, please
respond with a resounding "YUP...now please move on to discussing
evidence, Pamela."
I'll go first.
1. Barb - "YUP ... now please move on to discussing evidence, Pamela."
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Oh please. Though we may need them to stop you from spamming the group
with the same old "acknowledge Judyth's credentials" posts. Sigh.
>
>Pamela McElwain-Brown
>www.in-broad-daylight.com
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Where DO you come up with this stuff? Like Martin told somebody a day
or so ago ... "Can the paranoia."
>
>Pamela McElwain-Brown
>www.in-broad-daylight.com
Martin Shackelford
reason
that he was "missing" often--one of the reasons he was eventually fired.
Given the
frequency of his disappearances, don't you think it a bit odd that he wasn't
fired
sooner?
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:58dbc1fa-d976-4908...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
j_kev...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> Silly stuff entirely.
Getting this Ms. Brown? Even Shakelford thinks this business about
all Judyth skeptics being LN's masquerading as CT's (covertly
"sandbaging" all other legitimate research) is absurd.
> Both Judyth and I have criticized as well as praised Garrison, depending on
> the
> specifics. Howard once summarized the differences between Garrison and
> Judyth as "right people, wrong plot."
> The fantasy "dichotomy" you describe is your own invention. I've never
> subscribed to any such idiocy.
Good to hear you say this, but Ms. Brown is clearly a believer in the
notion that there is an enormous conspiracy of evil researchers
maliciously oppressing poor Judyth, who has -- as your story goes -- done
nothing but naievely and heroically attempted to save us all from our
ignorance about the true facts of the assassination. Your posturing does,
however, seem to overlook the fact that you frequently post comments
advancing the same "Judyth the leper" defense on her behalf; but this
would be in keeping with your defense of the concept of compartmentalized
veracity (e.g. "Charlie & Family's doctrine of credibility"). Ms. Brown
has let her views on the immensity of the anti-Judyth conspiracy be known,
perhaps you could share with us how big you think it is?
> Also, no one has claimed that ONLY Garrison bashers have been critical
> of Judyth--that's just more oversimplification.
You are evidently missing Ms. Brown's posts.
> As for what category you belong in, we can all decide that for ourselves.
You seem to be getting mighty trigger happy with this atom bomb of anti-CT
slurs there, Mr. Shakelford. That is unusual for you. Maybe this Judyth
business is really starting to take a toll on you ya think?
J.K.
steve
wrote:
yup, is there anything else? cause all that tells me is she worked at
reily, and worked on cancer as a student. nothing more.
steve
wrote:
> Have you considered the possibility that few recalled Oswald for the simple
> reason
> that he was "missing" often--one of the reasons he was eventually fired.
yeah i have, so what though? have you considered that few recall him
because he only worked there for a little over 2 months? its probably
both. did he have people standing over him while he worked, or was he in a
position where he could wonder around and act busy, or was it like no one
would notice if he was missing for a few hours.
> Given the
> frequency of his disappearances, don't you think it a bit odd that he wasn't
> fired
> sooner?
well do you know the exact frequency of his absenses? i dont. i wont
think its odd untill i know how often he was missing and when. when
someone gets a job the employer usually gives time to learn it and adjust
to the work environment. the employee also usually starts off trying to
impress even if they dont like the job, and they start slacking once they
feel a little more comfortable. mabey Oswald didnt start slacking as soon
as he got the job. i also dont know what the inside of reily was like and
how many people worked in the same area that Oswald did. how easy was it
for him to just skip out for a few hours and not be noticed? there is many
things that go into it, but i havent seen anything with details about how
often he was missing, or at what point in his history of working there he
started skipping out.
>
> Martin
>
> "steve" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > >> Pamela McElwain-Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com-Hidequoted text -
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Nice straw, Barb. The issue is whether or not this documentation is
sufficient to agree that they knew each other. You have endlessly
attempted to maintain an apologist stance that it is not.
In case you've forgotten, here's a recent example:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/thread/8d914bf260df4968/46dbc9fe0b0f5610?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=barb+doesn%27t+mean+they+knew+each+other#46dbc9fe0b0f5610
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
On Jan 13, 11:50 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
wrote:
curtjester1
wrote:
> The LHO in Russia fooled around with a number of women.
>
> Martin
>
Name one.
Hint, it won't be Judyth.
CJ
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2008 22:26:09 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
>
>
>
>
So now Barb is compelled to jump in and play shrink ?
Why not answer candidly from your own experience? Is your posting to each
and every Judyth thread fueled only by antagonism toward her, or toward
Garrison as well?
Pamela Mcelwain Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2008 22:21:16 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
>
>
>
>
> <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 12, 1:35 pm, j_keven...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Jan 11, 10:11 pm, Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> > Pamela McElwain-Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com-Hidequoted text -
>
> >> This is referencing the logical conclusions of the rhetorical devices
> >> you are using to suggest there is some sort of wide-ranging
> >> underground conspiracy in the research community dedicated to keeping
> >> the world from being illuminated by Judyth's Earth shattering
> >> revelations about LHO and the Kennedy assassination.
>
> >You are jumping into the thread where John outs Barb and then complains
> >about the size of the conspiracy. Your statement then does not follow
> >logically.
>
> didn't "out" me ...that's hilarious ... but your thinking that rather
> reveals something about you ....uh ... logically. ROTFL.[...]
Nice sway and sashay, Barb. Anyone who wants to can read the post and
decide for themselves. But then, it's pretty obvious that anybody who
continually posts about people not knowing each other even though they
worked together is taking a WC apologist stance, where they 'can't' see
any connection that might lead to a conspiracy.
Perhaps your position is somewhat liberal though -- I haven't seen you
posting that Nellie can't be considered a witness to the shots because
'even though she was there she doesn't know anything about guns'. Nor have
I seen evidence of your complaining that Madeleine Brown produced no
documentation to connect her in any way to LBJ, and that having a son
doesn't mean they knew each other, either.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
John McAdams
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Jan 12, 10:13=A0pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> On 12 Jan 2008 22:21:16 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>>
>>
>> >You are jumping into the thread where John outs Barb and then complains
>> >about the size of the conspiracy. =A0Your statement then does not follow
>> >logically.
>>
>> Go back to what John said and read for comprehension, Pamela. John
>> didn't "out" me ...that's hilarious ... but your thinking that rather
>> reveals something about you ....uh ... logically. ROTFL.[...]
>
>Nice sway and sashay, Barb. Anyone who wants to can read the post and
>decide for themselves. But then, it's pretty obvious that anybody who
>continually posts about people not knowing each other even though they
>worked together is taking a WC apologist stance, where they 'can't' see
>any connection that might lead to a conspiracy.
>
>Perhaps your position is somewhat liberal though -- I haven't seen you
>posting that Nellie can't be considered a witness to the shots because
>'even though she was there she doesn't know anything about guns'. Nor have
>I seen evidence of your complaining that Madeleine Brown produced no
>documentation to connect her in any way to LBJ, and that having a son
>doesn't mean they knew each other, either.
>
And what is the evidence that she had a baby by LBJ?
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
And you are claiming that you did not know the other 2 people at your
company?
> the coffee co? and they had 100 people there? and many people didnt
I work at a company with over 100 people. I know some of them, but that
does not mean I know them well and certainly I do not sleep with them.
> remember Oswald according to Martin, and Oswald was not known for hanging
> out with co workers, and he spent his spare time hanging with Alba(who buy
> the way knows nothing about Judyth). do you consider laying eyes on
> someone "knowing" them?
>
Jeez, ya think? How could you guys keep calling Oswald a loner if he were
friendly with everyone? Do you think I go around telling my coworkers whom
I sleep with, especially if it's a married woman? Try to focus.
Anthony Marsh
That is the cheapest way to win any debate, just call your opponent
paranoid. If you are the Catholic Church and someone claims that the Earth
is round, just call him a heretic and burn him at the stake. Don't debate
facts. When people suspected that the government was illegally testing
drugs on people (see MK\ULTRA) all the government had to do to deny (lie)
it was call them paranoid. When people thought that the Watergate breakin
was more than just a third-rate burglary, all the government had to do was
call them paranoid. When people said that Bush ordered massive spying on
everyone, all the government had to do was call them paranoid. Anyone who
plays the paranoid card does so in order to avoid discussing the evidence.
>
>> Pamela McElwain-Brown
>> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
Anthony Marsh
But the mods allow SPAMMING the group by WC defenders posting exactly
the same messages dozens of times proclaiming all the evidence proves
the WC correct, but offering no proof.
>
>> Pamela McElwain-Brown
>> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
Anthony Marsh
That she wrote "stay in a fine hotel in Cancun."