Pamela McElwain-Brown: Oswald watching the motorcade?
Dave Reitzes
Palgrave, 2001), our own Pamela McElwain-Brown claims that Oswald was
downstairs watching the motorcade at the time of the assassination:
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
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. (p. 169)
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
Pamela, I notice you don't cite sources for these novel claims in your
published article. Would you kindly do so now? I'd hate for anyone to
think you just made them up out of thin air.
Dave
"Is it possible to look at the assassination from the perspective of
the car?"
-- Pamela McElwain-Brown (CAR CRASH CULTURE, p. 166)
David Von Pein
It's pretty clear that "Pam's" source for her claim that LHO was "taking a
relying on for such a statement?)
Of course, as all reasonable researchers know, the "Doorway Man" in the
James Altgens photo is not Lee Oswald--it's Billy Lovelady, just as
Lovelady HIMSELF told the Warren Commission in 1964, and just as Buell
Wesley Frazier confirmed on camera in 1986:
http://YouTube.com/watch?v=tzw3RlNgR1s
The part about Oswald "waiting for a call telephone call that never comes"
is straight out of Oliver Stone's 1991 fantasy film. So, I have a good
idea where "Pam" got that silly and wholly-unsupportable idea.
Dave Reitzes
If a source isn't credible enough to be cited, then it's no source at
all. And if a source is a work of fiction, well, enough said (except
for some possible issues involving copyright infringement, which is
not my concern). With fictional sources or no sources at all, Pam's
published claims about Oswald and concerning the assassination itself
(see my post, "Pamela McElwain-Brown takes the wheel") are nothing
more than fiction.
I asked Pam a couple times last year if, when she sold her essay to
the editor of the CAR CRASH CULTURE book, she'd represented it as a
work of non-fiction. She never answered me. She knows she can't defend
her work.
Dave
pjfk
"DVP" is not much of a mind-reader, so as a result creates strawmen. But
then, the mindset of the WC apologist tends to place limits to thinking on
one's own, much less following the evidence.
It probably has not occurred to "DVP" that it may have been no coincidence
that LHO went to the Texas Theater, and that perhaps he was waiting to be
told where to go or what to do. It would also not occur to "DVP" most
likely to accept the fact that LHO had nothing to do with the M/C after
his return from Dallas and that no unfabricated evidence has ever put him
in the SN during the assassination.
So, for those who wish to reason logically, the question then becomes,
"where was LHO and what was he doing?" But we won't wait with bated
breath for "DVP" to research that; it isn't a picture, or a movie, or the
WCR, but something he would have to figure out on his own.
Robert Harris
Pamela, the question is legitimate.
Ad homenim is worthless, whether it come from you or them.
Address the question and if you are wrong, admit it.
Robert harris
Sandy McCroskey
The *only* logical inference from the evidence is that Oswald was in
the sniper's nest on the sixth floor.
/sm
David Von Pein
>>> ""DVP" is not much of a mind-reader, so as a result creates strawmen."
<<<
"Pam's" pot/kettle gene is on full display here. If anyone has created a
"strawman" regarding the whereabouts of Lee Harvey Oswald at 12:30 PM CST
on 11/22/63, it is "Pamela" Brown.
>>> "But then, the mindset of the WC apologist tends to place limits to
thinking on one's own, much less following the evidence." <<<
Pot/Kettle #2!
"Pam" has no more "[followed] the evidence" regarding Lee Oswald's
whereabouts and movements on 11/22/63 than Oliver Stone or Jim Garrison
have.
She merely pretends that Oswald was outside on the front steps of the
Depository "watching the motorcade", when there is documentary evidence to
indicate Oswald was not on the steps (e.g., the Altgens photo, Buell
Wesley Frazier's testimony, and Billy N. Lovelady's testimony).
You're doing great so far, "Pam". (If a .000 batting average is your
goal.)
>>> "It probably has not occurred to "DVP" that it may have been no
coincidence that LHO went to the Texas Theater, and that perhaps he was
waiting to be told where to go or what to do." <<<
What was "Pam" saying about creating "strawmen" a second ago?
Pot meets kettle for the third time.
>>> "It would also not occur to "DVP" most likely to accept the fact that
LHO had nothing to do with the M/C after his return from Dallas..." <<<
Yeah, I guess Oswald went out to Irving for his unusual Thursday-night
visit so that he could take a 38-inch-long submarine sandwich to work with
him the next day.
What was "Pam" saying a second ago about "following the evidence"? Four
pots and kettles so far.
Since "Pam" just said that it's likely LHO had "nothing to do with the M/C
after his return from Dallas" [sic; "Pam" no doubt meant to say New
Orleans here, instead of Dallas; or maybe "Pam" doesn't know what city
Oswald was in at various times in 1963], maybe "Pam" thinks (i.e.,
pretends) that some evil "Let's Frame Oswald" conspirator broke into Ruth
Paine's garage prior to the assassination and stole Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
Perhaps "Pam" would like to tell us just exactly WHO stole Oswald's rifle
and WHEN that theft took place.
As an alternative (and wholly unsupportable) conspiracy theory, "Pam" will
probably claim that nobody needed to break into Paine's garage to steal
the rifle, because the Carcano was never found in the TSBD at all on
November 22, a Mauser was found.
And, therefore, "Pam" might just want to pretend that the DALLAS POLICE
were the ones who placed Oswald's C2766 rifle into evidence -- even
though, according to some researchers who are better at identifying rifles
than I am, various frames of Tom Alyea's film prove that the rifle
discovered on the sixth floor was a Mannlicher-Carcano and not a
German-made Mauser.
So, regarding Oswald's rifle, whichever way "Pamela" chooses to go, she's
got to rely on her own vivid imagination and/or a lot of crooked cops who
couldn't have cared less about allowing the real killer(s) of the
President to get away scot-free.
>>> "...and that no unfabricated evidence has ever put him [EVERYBODY'S
FAVORITE PATSY NAMED OSWALD] in the SN during the assassination." <<<
Yeah, come to think about it a little bit more, "Pam" probably likes "The
Cops Planted The Carcano" scenario better than the "Rifle Was Stolen From
The Paine Garage" tripe.
In other words, when you've got absolutely NOTHING of a physical nature to
back up your silly conspiracy theories -- just say that all the evidence
has been fabricated/faked/manufactured/planted/ manipulated. And
then--you're home free.
Great work, "Pam". You're doing a fine job of showing your true
"Everything Was Fabricated" colors today.
And, incredibly, per "Pamela", it is the lone-assassin believers who have
failed to "follow the evidence" in the JFK case.
Why is it that in the world of a JFK conspiracy theorist, white is ALWAYS
black, and up is ALWAYS down, and a guilty person is INEVITABLY an
innocent patsy?
~shrug~
>>> "So, for those who wish to reason logically, the question then
becomes, "where was LHO and what was he doing?"" <<<
Looks like it's time for Pot/Kettle #5 here.
If "Pam" really wanted to think and reason logically, she wouldn't be so
willing to sweep tons of Oswald-Did-It evidence under the rug and she
wouldn't be pretending that ALL of that Oswald-Did-It evidence had been
"fabricated" by evil plotters.
>>> "But we won't wait with bated breath for "DVP" to research that; it
isn't a picture, or a movie, or the WCR, but something he would have to
figure out on his own." <<<
The Dallas Police Department figured out who killed John F. Kennedy and
J.D. Tippit on Day 1 -- and that person was definitely Lee Harvey Oswald.
The fact that "Pam" cannot figure out something so incredibly easy to
figure out is certainly not my fault. It's hers. (But I still have a
feeling that Ollie Stone and Jimbo Garrison might have helped "Pam" to
reach her strange conclusions--just a touch. Right, "Pam"?)
I'll close this post by repeating the following excellent common-sense
quote from author and ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan, although "Pamela"
undoubtedly would qualify these words as coming from a person who
possesses no common sense or logic whatsoever:
"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team
of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole.
This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the
officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops", with the
inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence,
and "Evil Geniuses", with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence
that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry
M. Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation Of
The Kennedy Assassination" (c. 2005)
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/jesse-curry-interviews.html
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
Bud
>
> > It's pretty clear that "Pam's" source for her claim that LHO was "taking a
> > look at the motorcade from the front door of the Texas School Book
> > Depository" is the Altgens photograph. (What else could she possibly be
> > relying on for such a statement?)
>
> > Of course, as all reasonable researchers know, the "Doorway Man" in the
> > James Altgens photo is not Lee Oswald--it's Billy Lovelady, just as
> > Lovelady HIMSELF told the Warren Commission in 1964, and just as Buell
> > Wesley Frazier confirmed on camera in 1986:
>
> >http://YouTube.com/watch?v=tzw3RlNgR1s
>
> > The part about Oswald "waiting for a call telephone call that never comes"
> > is straight out of Oliver Stone's 1991 fantasy film. So, I have a good
> > idea where "Pam" got that silly and wholly-unsupportable idea.
>
> "DVP" is not much of a mind-reader, so as a result creates strawmen. But
> then, the mindset of the WC apologist tends to place limits to thinking on
> one's own, much less following the evidence.
There is no limit to the lengths conspiracy hobbyists will go to
pretend Oswald was innocent.
> It probably has not occurred to "DVP" that it may have been no coincidence
> that LHO went to the Texas Theater, and that perhaps he was waiting to be
> told where to go or what to do.
This is what a conspiracy hobbyist considers "following the
evidence".
> It would also not occur to "DVP" most
> likely to accept the fact that LHO had nothing to do with the M/C after
> his return from Dallas and that no unfabricated evidence has ever put him
> in the SN during the assassination.
How do you fabricate a witness?
> So, for those who wish to reason logically, the question then becomes,
> "where was LHO and what was he doing?"
Do you mean when he wasn`t shooting people?
> But we won't wait with bated
> breath for "DVP" to research that; it isn't a picture, or a movie, or the
> WCR, but something he would have to figure out on his own.
Let me help him. Just believe anything, no matter how unsupported or
far-fetched, as long as you think it gives Oswald some semblance of an
alibi. Ignore every indication of his guilt, imagine him to be anywhere
but in the SN shooting (even if that is the only supportable location),
and pretty soon you`ll be able to "figure this out" on your own.
Dave Reitzes
Obviously, since it's conspicuously absent from the 48 endnotes in
your article.
But at least you're not just making the whole thing up. That would be
fabrication, which of course you are against, right?
Dave
pjfk
> Pamela, the question is legitimate.
I agree. But there is no concluisive evidence as to exactly where LHO was
during the assassination.
>
> Ad homenim is worthless, whether it come from you or them.
Or you.
>
> Address the question and if you are wrong, admit it.
How can an opinion be wrong? I do not believe LHO was in the SN during
the assassination. I provided my explanation in that essay.
> >WCR, but something he would have to figure out on his own.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
pjfk
> On May 5, 2:23 pm, pjfk <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 10:31 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > It's pretty clear that "Pam's" source for her claim that LHO was "taking a
> > > look at the motorcade from the front door of the Texas School Book
> > > Depository" is the Altgens photograph. (What else could she possibly be
> > > relying on for such a statement?)
>
> > > Of course, as all reasonable researchers know, the "Doorway Man" in the
> > > James Altgens photo is not Lee Oswald--it's Billy Lovelady, just as
> > > Lovelady HIMSELF told the Warren Commission in 1964, and just as Buell
> > > Wesley Frazier confirmed on camera in 1986:
>
> > >http://YouTube.com/watch?v=tzw3RlNgR1s
>
> > > The part about Oswald "waiting for a call telephone call that never comes"
> > > is straight out of Oliver Stone's 1991 fantasy film. So, I have a good
> > > idea where "Pam" got that silly and wholly-unsupportable idea.
>
> > "DVP" is not much of a mind-reader, so as a result creates strawmen. But
> > then, the mindset of the WC apologist tends to place limits to thinking on
> > one's own, much less following the evidence.
>
> There is no limit to the lengths conspiracy hobbyists will go to
> pretend Oswald was innocent.
Yet the LNTs keep their blinders firmly in place.
>
> > It probably has not occurred to "DVP" that it may have been no coincidence
> > that LHO went to the Texas Theater, and that perhaps he was waiting to be
> > told where to go or what to do.
>
> This is what a conspiracy hobbyist considers "following the
> evidence".
Something LNTs have no need to do because they swallow whole the myth
of the WCR.
>
> > It would also not occur to "DVP" most
> > likely to accept the fact that LHO had nothing to do with the M/C after
> > his return from Dallas and that no unfabricated evidence has ever put him
> > in the SN during the assassination.
>
> How do you fabricate a witness?
It's called coaching.
>
> > So, for those who wish to reason logically, the question then becomes,
> > "where was LHO and what was he doing?"
>
> Do you mean when he wasn`t shooting people?
There is no evidence LHO went anywhere near the M/C when he returned
to Dallas.
>
> > But we won't wait with bated
> > breath for "DVP" to research that; it isn't a picture, or a movie, or the
> > WCR, but something he would have to figure out on his own.
>
> Let me help him. Just believe anything, no matter how unsupported or
> far-fetched, as long as you think it gives Oswald some semblance of an
> alibi. Ignore every indication of his guilt, imagine him to be anywhere
> but in the SN shooting (even if that is the only supportable location),
> and pretty soon you`ll be able to "figure this out" on your own.- Hide quoted text -
>
Translation: LNTs believe only the WCR even when it doesn't make sense.
In addition, they disregard the fact that the accused had to be murdered
before the WCR could be written, therefore rendering him unable to request
a defense. None of these things concern the LNTs. Sheeple.
Dave Reitzes
Pam?
Bud
> On May 5, 10:09 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 2:23 pm, pjfk <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 30, 10:31 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It's pretty clear that "Pam's" source for her claim that LHO was "taking a
> > > > look at the motorcade from the front door of the Texas School Book
> > > > Depository" is the Altgens photograph. (What else could she possibly be
> > > > relying on for such a statement?)
>
> > > > Of course, as all reasonable researchers know, the "Doorway Man" in the
> > > > James Altgens photo is not Lee Oswald--it's Billy Lovelady, just as
> > > > Lovelady HIMSELF told the Warren Commission in 1964, and just as Buell
> > > > Wesley Frazier confirmed on camera in 1986:
>
> > > >http://YouTube.com/watch?v=tzw3RlNgR1s
>
> > > > The part about Oswald "waiting for a call telephone call that never comes"
> > > > is straight out of Oliver Stone's 1991 fantasy film. So, I have a good
> > > > idea where "Pam" got that silly and wholly-unsupportable idea.
>
> > > "DVP" is not much of a mind-reader, so as a result creates strawmen. But
> > > then, the mindset of the WC apologist tends to place limits to thinking on
> > > one's own, much less following the evidence.
>
> > There is no limit to the lengths conspiracy hobbyists will go to
> > pretend Oswald was innocent.
>
> Yet the LNTs keep their blinders firmly in place.
It isn`t my inability to see, it`s your inability to show
anything.
> > > It probably has not occurred to "DVP" that it may have been no coincidence
> > > that LHO went to the Texas Theater, and that perhaps he was waiting to be
> > > told where to go or what to do.
>
> > This is what a conspiracy hobbyist considers "following the
> > evidence".
>
> Something LNTs have no need to do because they swallow whole the myth
> of the WCR.
Whats so hard to figure out? Oswald took his rifle to his work and shot
some people. That explains why his rifle was where the shots were fired
from, it explains his prints being at that location, it explains why an
ordinary citizen said he saw him shooting, it explains Oswald fleeing the
scene, it explains people seeing him killing a cop, it explains why he
attacked the police in the Texas Theater. But I`m willing to set aside my
blinders and look at your explanation for these things, but the fact is
you can`t produce one. CTers bitch about the WC, but they just can`t put a
reasonable explanation on the table to contend with the WC`s findings.
> > > It would also not occur to "DVP" most
> > > likely to accept the fact that LHO had nothing to do with the M/C after
> > > his return from Dallas and that no unfabricated evidence has ever put him
> > > in the SN during the assassination.
>
> > How do you fabricate a witness?
>
> It's called coaching.
But he was there, and he indicated the same place others indicated
the shots came from. He gave a description, and he said he could ID
the shooter. How can any of this be the result of coaching?
> > > So, for those who wish to reason logically, the question then becomes,
> > > "where was LHO and what was he doing?"
>
> > Do you mean when he wasn`t shooting people?
>
> There is no evidence LHO went anywhere near the M/C when he returned
> to Dallas.
His wife said he kept it with his belongings in the Paine`s garage, this
isn`t evidence? A witness said he saw Oswald shooting a rifle, this isn`t
evidence?
> > > But we won't wait with bated
> > > breath for "DVP" to research that; it isn't a picture, or a movie, or the
> > > WCR, but something he would have to figure out on his own.
>
> > Let me help him. Just believe anything, no matter how unsupported or
> > far-fetched, as long as you think it gives Oswald some semblance of an
> > alibi. Ignore every indication of his guilt, imagine him to be anywhere
> > but in the SN shooting (even if that is the only supportable location),
> > and pretty soon you`ll be able to "figure this out" on your own.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Translation: LNTs believe only the WCR even when it doesn't make sense.
You`ve only had over 4 decades with thousands of people working on
this "sensible" version, when will it be unveiled?
> In addition, they disregard the fact that the accused had to be murdered
> before the WCR could be written,
The WC wouldn`t have been formed if Oswald hadn`t been murdered.
>therefore rendering him unable to request
> a defense.
Yah, that is one of many disadvantages to being dead.
> None of these things concern the LNTs. Sheeple.
Since Oswald was killed we can`t determine whether he was guilty?
This is your idea?
Dave Reitzes
Oswald placed himself inside the building at the time of the shooting,
Pamela.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald_doorway.htm
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Reporter: Did you shoot the President?
Oswald: I work in that building.
Reporter: Were you in that building at the time?
Oswald: Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir.
(Source: Video "The Men Who Killed Kennedy," Reel 4, "The Patsy")
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
Was Oswald coached, Pamela?
Dave
Dave Reitzes
> On May 5, 9:30 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Pamela, the question is legitimate.
>
> I agree. But there is no concluisive evidence as to exactly where LHO was
> during the assassination.
Then why did you claim he was standing in the doorway of the TSBD?
> > Ad homenim is worthless, whether it come from you or them.
>
> Or you.
>
>
>
> > Address the question and if you are wrong, admit it.
>
> How can an opinion be wrong? I do not believe LHO was in the SN during
> the assassination. I provided my explanation in that essay.
I don't see anything in your article supporting your statement,
Pamela. Kindly cite it for us.
Why do people have to keep asking you over and over again?
Dave
Dave Reitzes
Perhaps I'm moving a little too quickly for you, Pamela. Let's take a
step back.
When you stated that Oswald was standing in the TSBD doorway at the
time of the shooting, did you have a source?
Yes or no, please.
Dave
jfk...@gmail.com
In this thread which Dave Reitzes initiated, he then spammed with his own
responses. Why have the mods allowed this? Would any of the rest of us
be allowed to do this or would the duplicate posts be rejected?
Do we now have to open the door once more to the question of whether
Reitzes in fact has posting privileges on aaj? Are his posts scrutinized
as are the rest of ours? Has he been tasked with something that makes it
necessary for the mods to turn a blind eye?
David Von Pein
>>> "Dave Reitzes is allowed to spam aaj -- is anyone else?" <<<
Yep. Tony Marsh (all the time) and Tom Lowry (sometimes).
Dave Reitzes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
<QUOTE ON>---------------------------
An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument
toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an attempt to
persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or
belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a
classic logical fallacy.
<QUOTE OFF>--------------------------
Pamela's been attacking me for over a decade now. She never produces
the slightest evidence to support her positions.
I suppose she must have her reasons.
Dave
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Pam keeps her blinders firmly in place lest she be able to see all her
own spam posts about others ....
Learn to put the shovel down, Pam. :-)
ShutterBun
spam is actually due to the fact that there's no (visible) difference
between a post which hasn't yet received a reply, and a post with replies
still pending approval. The mere fact that Dave R. has multiple posts
showing up "simultaneously" indicates that he's just as beholden to the
approval process as the rest of us.
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> On 11 May 2010 19:34:42 -0400, "jfk2...@gmail.com" <jfk2...@gmail.com>
If she could provide direct answers to my questions, she'd shut me up
real fast.
Why do you think she doesn't?
Dave
ss679x
there will be no answers to any of his posts. Yet he continues to act as
though he is unaware of this simple fact. Why is that?
John McAdams
He has no obligation to take your "time outs" seriously.
Indeed, why should he?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Dave Reitzes
> On 12 May 2010 22:30:21 -0400, ss679x <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Reitzes has been aware for weeks that he has been put in a time-out and
> >there will be no answers to any of his posts. Yet he continues to act as
> >though he is unaware of this simple fact. Why is that?
>
> He has no obligation to take your "time outs" seriously.
>
> Indeed, why should he?
>
> .John
In the decade-plus she's attacked me as a "troll" and a
"propagandist," she has never been able to answer my questions or
support her views.
Who does she think she's fooling?
Dave
William Yates
Herself?
ss679x
> On 12 May 2010 22:30:21 -0400, ss679x <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Reitzes has been aware for weeks that he has been put in a time-out and
> >there will be no answers to any of his posts. Yet he continues to act as
> >though he is unaware of this simple fact. Why is that?
>
> He has no obligation to take your "time outs" seriously.
McAdams is creating a strawman. That is not the issue.
The issue is that Reitzes continues to make demands as though the were
unaware that there will be no reply to his posts. He has even been
allowed to spam his own threads. Duplicate posts of others are usually
returned, so either he has posting privileges or is being given the blind
eye.
But McAdams objects to having that defined. Why is that?
ss679x
him a 'troll' or 'propogandist' on aaj. The discussion relates only
to his posts and web pages. Does he perceive the difference?
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
>>>> "Dave Reitzes is allowed to spam aaj -- is anyone else?" <<<
>
>Yep. Tony Marsh (all the time) and Tom Lowry (sometimes).
Apparently so is Pam. What else can you really call these endless new
threads that do nothing but harass other posters? She doesn't even
pretend to actually be discussing evidence. It's all Pam Spam...pure
and simple. Very simple.
Barb Junkkarinen
>On May 12, 12:47?am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> On 11 May 2010 19:34:42 -0400, "jfk2...@gmail.com" <jfk2...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >In this thread which Dave Reitzes initiated, he then spammed with his own
>> >responses. ?Why have the mods allowed this? ?Would any of the rest of us
>> >be allowed to do this or would the duplicate posts be rejected?
>>
>> >Do we now have to open the door once more to the question of whether
>> >Reitzes in fact has posting privileges on aaj? ?Are his posts scrutinized
>> >as are the rest of ours? Has he been tasked with something that makes it
>> >necessary for the mods to turn a blind eye?
>>
>> Pam keeps her blinders firmly in place lest she be able to see all her
>> own spam posts about others ....
>>
>> Learn to put the shovel down, Pam. :-)
>
>
>If she could provide direct answers to my questions, she'd shut me up
>real fast.
>
>Why do you think she doesn't?
>
>Dave
She loves you, Dave. What would she do all day and half the night if
she couldn't put your name in countless new threads and spam the group
with them? <g>
Barb :-)
Dave Reitzes
> Reitzes creates another strawman. �A CT would never be allowed to call
> him a 'troll' or 'propogandist'
[sic]
on aaj. �The discussion relates only
> to his posts and web pages. �Does he perceive the difference?
Pam has called me a troll and propagandist dozens, if not hundreds of
times at this newsgroup. The first time I'm aware of occurred in March
2000. The post is no longer archived at Google Groups (did the author
delete it?), but she's quoted in my response:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7ac95c844b4f5b48?hl=en&dmode=source
Pam lobs ad hominem at anyone she disagrees with, then tries to play
the victim.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
> In her article in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Mikita Brottman, ed., New York:
> Palgrave, 2001), our own Pamela McElwain-Brown claims that Oswald was
> downstairs watching the motorcade at the time of the assassination:
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> 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. (p. 169)
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
> Pamela, I notice you don't cite sources for these novel claims in your
> published article. Would you kindly do so now? I'd hate for anyone to
> think you just made them up out of thin air.
Pam,
Did you even have sources at all?
Yes or no, please.
Dave
> "Is it possible to look at the assassination from the perspective of
> the car?"
> -- Pamela McElwain-Brown (CAR CRASH CULTURE, p. 166)
Barb Junkkarinen
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>On 12 May 2010 22:30:21 -0400, ss679x <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Reitzes has been aware for weeks that he has been put in a time-out and
>>there will be no answers to any of his posts. Yet he continues to act as
>>though he is unaware of this simple fact. Why is that?
>
>
>He has no obligation to take your "time outs" seriously.
>
>Indeed, why should he?
>
>.John
And if he is in "time out" ... why is she dogging him with new thread
after new thread carrying his name ... then complains that he replies.
Pure sPam.
Barb :-)
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
Not LNs ... not even CTs. Perhaps herself, but that's about it. Well,
save for Fetzer...ROTL.
Barb :-)
>
>Dave
jfk...@gmail.com
Barb has been had it explained to her more than once that there is a
difference between initiating a thread and changing a header. Since she
once was a mod, one might think she would have already known that.
However, she is comfortable continuing to misrepresent the fact that.
She cannot point to a single thread relevant to this discussion that was
not initiated by Reitzes.
jfk...@gmail.com
> >>> "Dave Reitzes is allowed to spam aaj -- is anyone else?" <<<
>
> Yep. Tony Marsh (all the time) and Tom Lowry (sometimes).
Are you saying they repeatedly reply to their own posts when nobody else
has? Look at posts 14, 15 and 16 in this thread if you are viewing in
Google. On May 6, 9 and 10th Reitzes replied TO HIMSELF. That is spam.
Anthony never does that. I doubt that Lowry does either. Only Reitzes.
In addition, if most posters were to even attempt to do that, their post
would be returned.
jfk...@gmail.com
With all Barb's expertise at being a mod, one would think she would have
had a little mod-training about what 'spam' is. Ironically, spamming per
se is something that Barb has not yet fallen prey to. It is, however,
something that Reitzes regularly does, which is to reply to his own post
in order to try to keep a thread going.
And of course, she hasn't yet been able to figure out that there is a
difference between a poster initiating a thread and a reply poster
changing the header to a post in that thread. <sigh>
But then, if she were to catch up on her mod, or ex-mod training, there
would be a little less humor on aaj. :-)
jfk...@gmail.com
strawman. He chooses to confuse calling his web pages 'propaganda'
with calling him a 'propogandist'. But then, he seems be having a
tough time getting much of anything right.
jfk...@gmail.com
No. Spamming is when you post a reply to your own post when nobody
else has. The purpose is just to keep the thread going. They are
nothing but duplicate posts and the mods reject them as such, except
for Reitzes.
Trolling is when Reitzes hauls out a new nonsensical topic with a
person's name in it and then starts making demands.
Anthony Marsh
Evidence? You're one to talk. All you can talk about is whether Oswald
was circumcised or not.
David Von Pein
>>> "Are you saying they repeatedly reply to their own posts when nobody
else has? Look at posts 14, 15 and 16 in this thread if you are viewing in
Google. On May 6, 9 and 10th Reitzes replied TO HIMSELF. That is spam."
<<<
You didn't specify that the "spam" had to be the result of someone
replying to their own posts. You merely asked: "Dave Reitzes is allowed to
David Von Pein
>>> "Dave Reitzes is allowed to spam aaj -- is anyone else?" <<<
Why do you even care, "Pam"?
William Yates
The last part sounds more than you than anyone else here, but why is
asking you to explain claims you've made "nonsensical"?
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
Unfortunately, you seem to have written this post without bothering to
do any fact-checking.
Why not actually do a little research and see how many threads with my
name in them Reitzes has initiated, and then check to see how many
times he has replied to his own posts when nobody else has?
Dave Reitzes
You'd think Pamela Brown (who, as Pamela McElwain-Brown, described
herself as a researcher who "makes waves," is too "dangerous" for the
Establishment, and a fervent opponent of the "Ongoing Coverup" that
enshrouds the JFK assassination in mystery) would be eager to support
her claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway of the
Texas School Book Depository at the time the fatal shots rang out.
Why, this one simple fact would utterly destroy the conclusions of the
Warren Commission, which Pamela despises!
But, oddly enough, she'd rather post about ME -- over and over and
over and over again, instead of answering my one simple question about
what the source for her startling claim was.
How DARE I ask her to support this assertion of hers? What awful
"demands" I'm making!
Dave
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4bedbd60$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Oswald's autopsy report states that Oswald WAS Circumcised. ! ! !
Dave Reitzes
Pamela?
Dave Reitzes
> In her article in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Mikita Brottman, ed., New York:
> Palgrave, 2001), our own Pamela McElwain-Brown claims that Oswald was
> downstairs watching the motorcade at the time of the assassination:
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> 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. (p. 169)
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
> Pamela, I notice you don't cite sources for these novel claims in your
> published article. Would you kindly do so now? I'd hate for anyone to
> think you just made them up out of thin air.
>
Pamela,
I understand that you and your husband Donner are collaborating on a
book about the JFK assassination.
Tell me, will any of it be true?
Grizzlie Antagonist
>On May 5, 9:30 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Pamela, the question is legitimate.
>
>I agree. But there is no concluisive evidence as to exactly where LHO was
>during the assassination.
>
>>
>> Ad homenim is worthless, whether it come from you or them.
>
>Or you.
>
>>
>> Address the question and if you are wrong, admit it.
>
>How can an opinion be wrong? I do not believe LHO was in the SN during
>the assassination. I provided my explanation in that essay.
I don't understand. You and Martin Shackleford are the keepers of the
flame of She Who Must Be Believed.
She Who Must Be Believed insisted that LHO WAS or MUST HAVE BEEN in the SN
during the assassination and in fact must have fired one or more shots.
She Who Must Be Believed made it very clear -- didn't she? -- that the
last time that LHO spoke with her over the phone, He told her that He was
going to carry the MC into the sniper's nest FOR THE EXPLICIT PURPOSE of
laying down fire in the streets in order to warn the honest Secret Service
agents in the motorcade of the assassination.
Isn't that what She said?
In other words, He was going to pretend to go along with the assassination
in order that He would have the opportunity to fire what would amount to a
warning shot.
That's what She said that He told Her, isn't it?
You're the keeper of the flame. So how can you possibly argue that Oswald
wasn't even in the sniper's nest. You can't contradict Her.
ss679x
wrote:
What a convoluted strawman you have created. None of this makes any sense
at all. How does keeping an open mind mean anything other than that?
Dave Reitzes
> In her article in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Mikita Brottman, ed., New York:
> Palgrave, 2001), our own Pamela McElwain-Brown claims that Oswald was
> downstairs watching the motorcade at the time of the assassination:
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> 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. (p. 169)
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
> Pamela, I notice you don't cite sources for these novel claims in your
> published article. Would you kindly do so now? I'd hate for anyone to
> think you just made them up out of thin air.
>
> Dave
Pamela?
Grizzlie Antagonist
"What, art thou mad? Art thou mad? Is not the truth the truth?"
- Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part I
It's what She said that He said, isn't it?
> None of this makes any sense at all.
I don't think that it makes any sense either. Oswald firing at the
presidential motorcade for benign motives. It doesn't make any sense
to me, either.
But it's what She said that He said.
And your arguing that Judyth Must Be Believed while arguing, in the
same breath, that Oswald wasn't even in the sniper's nest -- it
doesn't make any sense at all.
> How does keeping an open mind mean anything other than that?
I'm not sure. But there's no point in your lecturing me on it.
If I'm going to be lectured on the virtues of keeping an open mind, I
would prefer to receive that lecture from someone who actually has an
open mind.
Barb Junkkarinen
<lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Delightful. :-) <applause>
jfk...@gmail.com
Your opinion. You are entitled.
>
> And your arguing that Judyth Must Be Believed while arguing, in the
> same breath, that Oswald wasn't even in the sniper's nest -- it
> doesn't make any sense at all.
Strawman. Quote me ever arguing that "Judyth Must Be Believed".
>
> > How does keeping an open mind mean anything other than that?
>
> I'm not sure. But there's no point in your lecturing me on it.
You are the one creating strawmen about my position.
>
> If I'm going to be lectured on the virtues of keeping an open mind, I
> would prefer to receive that lecture from someone who actually has an
> open mind.->
That is my position. Take it or leave it, or keep on trying to go
around in circles misrepresenting it.
Your choice.
Grizzlie Antagonist
But it's NOT my opinion. It's what She said that He said.
> > And your arguing that Judyth Must Be Believed while arguing, in the
> > same breath, that Oswald wasn't even in the sniper's nest -- it
> > doesn't make any sense at all.
>
> Strawman. Quote me ever arguing that "Judyth Must Be Believed".
>
>
>
> > > How does keeping an open mind mean anything other than that?
>
> > I'm not sure. But there's no point in your lecturing me on it.
>
> You are the one creating strawmen about my position.
>
>
>
> > If I'm going to be lectured on the virtues of keeping an open mind, I
> > would prefer to receive that lecture from someone who actually has an
> > open mind.->
>
> That is my position. Take it or leave it, or keep on trying to go
> around in circles misrepresenting it.
>
> Your choice
"Suppose you observed over a period of time that I was frequently
exercised over threats to the freedom of Christians but seldom, if ever,
exercised over threats to the freedom of Jews," James Burnham posits in
his tract "Suicide of the West. "You would then be entitled to suspect
that it was not just freedom, plain and simple, that I primarily valued."
I don't think that you have ever said, in so many words, that Judyth Must
Be Believed.
What you always say is that she is "entitled to a voice" or something like
that.
Who else would you say is "entitled to a voice"? Are those who disbelieve
Judyth "entitled to a voice"? Clearly, in your mind, no one who
disbelieves Judyth is "entitled to a voice". Clearly, in your mind, no
one whose views might come closer to the official position is entitled to
a voice.
So I'm entitled to suspect that it is not just loquaciousness for Judyth,
plain and simple, that you value.
And so you don't need to say, in so many words, that, as far as you are
concerned, Judyth Must Be Believed. That is pretty much inherent in
everything else that you say.
tomnln
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:49679d87-06d8-483e...@40g2000pry.googlegroups.com...