Re: Pamela's Cute Pig
Pamela McElwain-Brown
LNT, has resorted to some of the more typical LNT tactics in order to
attempt to make an objection to my statement in "The Pretty Pig's Saturday
Night". Chad has managed to eliminate the link, so readers are supposed
to rely on him for interpretation instead of analyzing information for
themselves, it would appear.
Here is the link for those who are interested:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
In addition, Chad has apparently not even looked at the exhibit I used
relative to my statement. He doesn't reference it in his cute reply.
Here is the link to the gif:
http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
If Chad had bothered to look at this gif he might have realized that he
and Posner use only closups of the Z223-6 sequence, and the closeups do
not show correctly the orientation of the limo, JFK and JBC, and the
shadow of the Stemmons Freeway sign that is between them and Zapruder.
Chad also chose to ignore, the fact that the small side window in the
center partition is also part of the orientation by which the shadow comes
through the window onto JBC's torso.
Will Chad next attempt to divert and obfuscate and dismiss this
information, again delete the links, and hope to place an LNT spin on the
'lapel flop' issue once again???
And, lastly, Chad tries to pretend that 'the SBT' is 'my' pretty pig. It
is not. I didn't create 'the SBT'. Specter did. So it's Specter and the
WC's Pretty Pig! And Chad's! <g>
Pamela ;-)
On 5 Dec 2004 19:48:44 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
wrote:
>I don't know what's cuter, the pig you wrote about or the pig you trailed in with you in the paper.
>
>Again, you've stated that the 'lapel flip', or "flop" as you prefer to call it, was created from the shadow of the Stemmons Freeway sign.
>
>Quote:
>
>"With colossal arrogance, Posner used the 'lapel flip' as the crowning glory of his book. And it wasnt' even true. The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow coming through the small side window on the Presidential limousine. The apparent change in position is a result of JBC's rotating forward. And, as you can clearly see in the fulll-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between Zapruder and the limousine."
>
>You are familiar with the numerous photos that show that sign within minutes of the assassination, aren't you?
>
>Would it surprise you that no such shadow is cast onto the street where you have alleged Connally to have driven through it.
>
>See the Bond #8 below:
>
>
>
>See that shadow to the left (man's left) of the man in the dark suit? That's the Stemmons Freeway
>sign's shadow. See how the shadow of the man in the dark suit crosses over the curb and into
>the grass? Just how did JBC catch some of the Stemmons Freeway sign shadow?
>
>Nice to see that your only major refutation of the Posner scenario is the 'lapel flip' into a 'flop'.
>
>However, whose 'flop' is it?
>
>
>Chad
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A
Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
"Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary
devoted to SS-100-X. It airs on the SPEED cable channel throughout
November 2004. Here is a link to the schedule:
http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson, Vaughn's widow
and I are interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay
"SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002) was used as the basis for
the assassination section. For more information on the JFK Assassination
Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com. Also, for more
detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join jfk100x on
Yahoogroups.com. For information about my life away from research, visit
www.themagicflute.org
Chad Zimmerman
"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:rst9r0lb2ba3augbf...@4ax.com...
> Ironically, and unfortunately, Chad, who happens to be a mod of aaj and an
> LNT,
And Pamela who happens to be a flute player and limo expert...
>has resorted to some of the more typical LNT tactics
Yeah, facts. Damn those things.
Kind of like that damn tactic I used to show that 8cm isn't 6"...it's called
proper conversion
beyond your editing.
in order to
> attempt to make an objection to my statement in "The Pretty Pig's Saturday
> Night". Chad has managed to eliminate the link,
Yeah, by taking advantage of the fact that it wasn't in the body of the
'article'. That's
your problem, not mine. I quoted the pertinent text of yours, now you want
me to have
posted the entire thing.
so readers are supposed
> to rely on him for interpretation instead of analyzing information for
> themselves, it would appear.
Yeah, I quoted it directly. Sorry. Its your interpretation, not mine- hence
those
pesky quotation marks.
>
> Here is the link for those who are interested:
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
>
> In addition, Chad has apparently not even looked at the exhibit I used
> relative to my statement. He doesn't reference it in his cute reply.
He doesn't need to because it is absurd. The shadow (of the sign) wasn't
anywhere
near JBC. You don't need to review the Zapruder frames to know that. How
about
the plethora of photos that illustrate that fact. Don't let those get in the
way!
>
> Here is the link to the gif:
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
> If Chad had bothered to look at this gif he might have realized that he
> and Posner use only closups of the Z223-6 sequence,
Of course, that's asinine, I have all the frames: wideframe, full frame,
closeup,
medium frame- but Pamela, herself, chooses to use the very frames that she
is
castigating me for allegedly using.
and the closeups do
> not show correctly the orientation of the limo, JFK and JBC, and the
> shadow of the Stemmons Freeway sign that is between them and Zapruder.
So, she resorts to using the closeup frames in order to illustrate it, then
insinuates
that that's all I've used! Good job!
....something about a pot and a kettle...
>
> Chad also chose to ignore, the fact that the small side window in the
> center partition is also part of the orientation by which the shadow comes
> through the window onto JBC's torso.
The shadow is not cast onto the car or into the street. Several photos, as
well
as the Zfilm, illustrate this basic concept. Just look at those shadows
across the
street. Now, figure out where the Stemmons Sign shadow was.
Rocket science?
>
> Will Chad next attempt to divert and obfuscate and dismiss this
> information,
Huh? I did nothing of the sort. Is this what happens when you show someone
that
they made a mistake?
again delete the links, and hope to place an LNT spin on the
> 'lapel flop' issue once again???
I didn't delete the links. You didn't post them in the body of your
'article'.
>
> And, lastly, Chad tries to pretend that 'the SBT' is 'my' pretty pig.
No, I did not.
It
> is not.
No kidding.
I didn't create 'the SBT'. Specter did. So it's Specter and the
> WC's Pretty Pig!
But you trailed in your own shadowy pig! If you'd read the post, you
would've
understood that.
>And Chad's!
I don't have one. I am talking about yours. (Big, enormous, superlarge,
gigantic...<G>)
Chad
Pamela McElwain-Brown
acknowledge the burden of proof on the LNTs regarding 'their SBT' he
attempts to push that responsibility back on the critic. In addition,
he is pulling insignificant information out of context to attempt to
put his spin on the criticism..
Let's clarify things:
1 -- No SB scenario has ever been proven.
2 -- The WC used incorrect limo measurements, per the HSCA-- 6 inches
clearance v 2.5 inches, and 1.5 inches height difference when there
was at least 3 inches (8 cm) difference.
Thus, the LNTs have yet to even prove an SB scenario. What are they
doing assuming it has been proven and demanding that those who
disagree with it put up their proof?
S-O-D (slime, obfuscate, divert). A legal tactic.
Pamela
On 7 Dec 2004 09:19:15 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
wrote:
It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here is a link to the
Chad Zimmerman
(yep, more Cosell play by play)
> Now Chad seems to be using another LNT tactic -- rather than
> acknowledge the burden of proof on the LNTs regarding 'their SBT' he
> attempts to push that responsibility back on the critic.
Um, no. I was simply addressing ONE POINT of what you wrote in your
pig paper. A factual inconsistency.
In addition,
> he is pulling insignificant information out of context to attempt to
> put his spin on the criticism..
Bull. I quoted you DIRECTLY. It came right from the pig paper in question.
You wrote it. You now don't want to discuss the shadow, but prefer other
discussion- initiated by you.
>
> Let's clarify things:
>
> 1 -- No SB scenario has ever been proven.
Not a point in this issue, but thanks for reminding us. If I were a rabid
CT, I'd
say that you are side-stepping, diverting if you will.
>
>
> 2 -- The WC used incorrect limo measurements, per the HSCA-- 6 inches
> clearance v 2.5 inches, and 1.5 inches height difference when there
> was at least 3 inches (8 cm) difference.
Again, not material in any capacity to this discussion. Glad to see that
you've figured
out that 8cm isn't 6". You're welcome.
>
> Thus, the LNTs have yet to even prove an SB scenario.
Red leader, stay on target. I was talking about the shadow, not everything
except
the shadow.
What are they
> doing assuming it has been proven and demanding that those who
> disagree with it put up their proof?
I don't know. That's not was I was addressing, was it? Did you, perhaps,
read
someone else's post and, perhaps, attribute it to me?
I was talking about the shadow. Write it down. Perhaps you and Tony can get
together and read my posts fully and take notes on what I actually said
versus
what you think I was thinking but didn't write.
>
> S-O-D (slime, obfuscate, divert). A legal tactic.
The only diversion here is from you, Pamela. Not ONCE did you address
ANYTHING
related to my post. Heck, you never even once mentioned the shadow- THE
PRIMARY
SUBJECT OF MY POST.
Would that be a tactic of any significant derivation? Or, is it simply a
tactic to scream 'tactic', then
employ the same tactic you are screaming about?
Chad
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.806 / Virus Database: 548 - Release Date: 12/5/2004
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>If I were a rabid CT
Instead of a rabid LNT?
LOL
PF
Chad Zimmerman
"Peter Fokes" <justplai...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3l4cr056sud5upoes...@4ax.com...
> On 7 Dec 2004 14:31:33 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
> >If I were a rabid CT
It was said for a reason...lol.
Chad
> Instead of a rabid LNT?
>
> LOL
>
>
> PF
>
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>
>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:qsvbr098g469nnonp...@4ax.com...
>
>(yep, more Cosell play by play)
>
>> Now Chad seems to be using another LNT tactic -- rather than
>> acknowledge the burden of proof on the LNTs regarding 'their SBT' he
>> attempts to push that responsibility back on the critic.
>
>Um, no. I was simply addressing ONE POINT of what you wrote in your
>pig paper. A factual inconsistency.
Untrue. You misrepresented the facts and confused them. Unless you
really don't know what you are talking about?
Here's the link to the essay "The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night"
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
>
> In addition,
>> he is pulling insignificant information out of context to attempt to
>> put his spin on the criticism..
>
>Bull. I quoted you DIRECTLY. It came right from the pig paper in question.
>You wrote it. You now don't want to discuss the shadow, but prefer other
>discussion- initiated by you.
You confused the difference in height measurement between the difference
in clearance measurement. You have been and are now rambling all alone by
yourself, aren't you? I don't see you referencing anything that I said.
>
>>
>> Let's clarify things:
>>
>> 1 -- No SB scenario has ever been proven.
>
>Not a point in this issue, but thanks for reminding us. If I were a rabid
>CT, I'd
>say that you are side-stepping, diverting if you will.
>
>>
>>
>> 2 -- The WC used incorrect limo measurements, per the HSCA-- 6 inches
>> clearance v 2.5 inches, and 1.5 inches height difference when there
>> was at least 3 inches (8 cm) difference.
>
>Again, not material in any capacity to this discussion. Glad to see that
>you've figured
>out that 8cm isn't 6". You're welcome.
The clearance distance was never at issue. The height difference is what
you are trying to make an issue out of. But you're not having any
success, are you?
>
>>
>> Thus, the LNTs have yet to even prove an SB scenario.
>
>Red leader, stay on target. I was talking about the shadow, not everything
>except
>the shadow.
I was replying to your misrepresentations of the difference in
measurements between the WC and HSCA.. You do recall rambling on about
that, don't you?
>
>What are they
>> doing assuming it has been proven and demanding that those who
>> disagree with it put up their proof?
>
>I don't know. That's not was I was addressing, was it? Did you, perhaps,
>read
>someone else's post and, perhaps, attribute it to me?
You were complaining about the fact that I have pointed out serious
discrepancies between the measurements used by the WC and the HSCA to
attempt to prove their SB scenarios.
>
>I was talking about the shadow.
You were misrepresenting measurements. I thought you had acknowledged the
'lapel flop' was nothing more than a shadow. Posner jumped to an
incorrect conclusion.
>Write it down. Perhaps you and Tony can get
>together and read my posts fully and take notes on what I actually said
>versus
>what you think I was thinking but didn't write.
Huh? It isn't easy to follow the meandering.
>
>>
>> S-O-D (slime, obfuscate, divert). A legal tactic.
>
>The only diversion here is from you, Pamela. Not ONCE did you address
>ANYTHING
>related to my post. Heck, you never even once mentioned the shadow- THE
>PRIMARY
>SUBJECT OF MY POST.
You were comfortable complaining about my essay without even having read
it, weren't you? And now you are complaining that I am not reading your
mind?
Why not just spit it out Chad? Just what are you so lathered about?
>
>Would that be a tactic of any significant derivation? Or, is it simply a
>tactic to scream 'tactic', then
>employ the same tactic you are screaming about?
>
Here's the gif showing the 'lapel flop'.
http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
My position is that Posner owes us all an apology for jumping to a
sinister conclusion. That you choose to agree with him is up to you. Is
that the problem? :-0
Pamela
Paul Seaton
Pamela,
You need to double check what you think you can 'clearly see', because you
are 'clearly seeing' something that provably isn't happening.
Here's your essay :
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
You say :
"The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow
coming through the small side window on the Presidential limousine. The
apparent change in position is a result of JBC's rotating forward. And, as
you can clearly see in the full-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow
came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between
Zapruder and the limousine. "
You complain about Posner :
"With all the technology that Posner by his own assertions had at his
disposal one would think that he would have examined and excluded every
other possibility, wouldn't it?"
Unfortunately, unless the sun momentarily flipped to the north (& let's
recall Dallas is in the northern hemisphere & it was mid-day ) there is no
way on earth that "the shadow came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway
sign", since the sign was north of the limo.
Chad has posted enough graphics to make this ultra-clear to even the most
geographically challenged.
Since you complain so much about others 'hodge-podge of misrepresentations'
& their "continu[ing] to spew forth ridiculous garbage only to deceive the
naive. ' perhaps a frank admission that you screwed up would be in order at
this point. ?
--
Paul Seaton
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Ironically, and unfortunately, Chad, who happens to be a mod of aaj and an
> LNT, has resorted to some of the more typical LNT tactics in order to
> attempt to make an objection to my statement in "The Pretty Pig's Saturday
> Night". Chad has managed to eliminate the link, so readers are supposed
> to rely on him for interpretation instead of analyzing information for
> themselves, it would appear.
>
> Here is the link for those who are interested:
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
>
> In addition, Chad has apparently not even looked at the exhibit I used
> relative to my statement. He doesn't reference it in his cute reply.
>
> Here is the link to the gif:
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
> If Chad had bothered to look at this gif he might have realized that he
> and Posner use only closups of the Z223-6 sequence, and the closeups do
> not show correctly the orientation of the limo, JFK and JBC, and the
> shadow of the Stemmons Freeway sign that is between them and Zapruder.
>
> Chad also chose to ignore, the fact that the small side window in the
> center partition is also part of the orientation by which the shadow comes
> through the window onto JBC's torso.
Pamela,
It is you who is utterly failing to address the fact that Chad's pic
shows the shadow cast by the sign to be going *away* from the street,
not toward it. This was Texas in November. At that time of year & at
that latitude the sun is more southward than it is in the summer. The
sign was on the *north* side of Elm. No object under the sun is going
to cast a shadow to the *south* at that time of year in Texas, thus it
is utterly impossible for the shadow of the sign to have extended into
the street at all.
In fact, not even on the summer solstice does the sun cast any shadows
to the south anywhere in Texas at any time of day. On that solstice,
the sun is directly over the Tropic of Cancer, which is still well south
of even the southernmost tip of Texas, & considerably further south than
Dallas. Even at high noon on the solstice shadows cast by the sun point
slightly north. They don't ever point south, not an iota.
> Will Chad next attempt to divert and obfuscate and dismiss this
> information, again delete the links, and hope to place an LNT spin on the
> 'lapel flop' issue once again???
Neither of those links show the shadow of the sign extending into the
street. The tilt of the earth on its axis precludes that from ever
being a possibility at that time of day at that time of year in Dallas.
Chad Zimmerman
> On 7 Dec 2004 14:31:33 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:qsvbr098g469nnonp...@4ax.com...
> >
> >(yep, more Cosell play by play)
> >
> >> Now Chad seems to be using another LNT tactic -- rather than
> >> acknowledge the burden of proof on the LNTs regarding 'their SBT' he
> >> attempts to push that responsibility back on the critic.
> >
> >Um, no. I was simply addressing ONE POINT of what you wrote in your
> >pig paper. A factual inconsistency.
>
> Untrue. You misrepresented the facts and confused them. Unless you
> really don't know what you are talking about?
>
> Here's the link to the essay "The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night"
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
Um, did you say:
"With colossal arrogance, Posner used the 'lapel flip' as the crowning
glory of his book. And it wasnt' even true. The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as
I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow coming through the small side
window on the Presidential limousine. The apparent change in position is a
result of JBC's rotating forward. And, as you can clearly see in the
full-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow came from none other than
the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between Zapruder and the limousine."
If I misunderstood, what did I misunderstand?
You did say that it was the Stemmons Freeway sign shadow, right?
>
> >
> > In addition,
> >> he is pulling insignificant information out of context to attempt to
> >> put his spin on the criticism..
> >
> >Bull. I quoted you DIRECTLY. It came right from the pig paper in
question.
> >You wrote it. You now don't want to discuss the shadow, but prefer other
> >discussion- initiated by you.
>
> You confused the difference in height measurement between the difference
> in clearance measurement. You have been and are now rambling all alone by
> yourself, aren't you? I don't see you referencing anything that I said.
Pamela, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE STEMMONS FREEWAY SHADOW.
That is it. I don't know what you keep mumbling about. I made no mention of
such things in this thread.
I directly quoted your passage regarding the Stemmons Freeway sign shadow.
Did
you forget to read that?
>
> >
> >>
> >> Let's clarify things:
> >>
> >> 1 -- No SB scenario has ever been proven.
> >
> >Not a point in this issue, but thanks for reminding us. If I were a rabid
> >CT, I'd
> >say that you are side-stepping, diverting if you will.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 2 -- The WC used incorrect limo measurements, per the HSCA-- 6 inches
> >> clearance v 2.5 inches, and 1.5 inches height difference when there
> >> was at least 3 inches (8 cm) difference.
> >
> >Again, not material in any capacity to this discussion. Glad to see that
> >you've figured
> >out that 8cm isn't 6". You're welcome.
>
> The clearance distance was never at issue. The height difference is what
> you are trying to make an issue out of. But you're not having any
> success, are you?
No, read the damned post, Pamela. I never made an issue of any height. I
made
an issue of your claim regarding the STEMMONS FREEWAY SIGN SHADOW
that you reference in your article.
> >
> >>
> >> Thus, the LNTs have yet to even prove an SB scenario.
> >
> >Red leader, stay on target. I was talking about the shadow, not
everything
> >except
> >the shadow.
>
> I was replying to your misrepresentations of the difference in
> measurements between the WC and HSCA.. You do recall rambling on about
> that, don't you?
I'm talking about the shadow. Is that so hard to comprehend, or would you
prefer
not talking about it?
>
> >
> >What are they
> >> doing assuming it has been proven and demanding that those who
> >> disagree with it put up their proof?
> >
> >I don't know. That's not was I was addressing, was it? Did you, perhaps,
> >read
> >someone else's post and, perhaps, attribute it to me?
>
> You were complaining about the fact that I have pointed out serious
> discrepancies between the measurements used by the WC and the HSCA to
> attempt to prove their SB scenarios.
Not in this thread.
>
> >
> >I was talking about the shadow.
>
> You were misrepresenting measurements. I thought you had acknowledged the
> 'lapel flop' was nothing more than a shadow. Posner jumped to an
> incorrect conclusion.
Bull. What shadow? The Stemmons sign? Please do some research. That's
impossible.
I posted numerous photos that show this to be wrong. This post was entirely
based upon
a shadow that has taken you 3 posts to acknowledge. I did not bring up
distances in this
post, did I?
>
> >Write it down. Perhaps you and Tony can get
> >together and read my posts fully and take notes on what I actually said
> >versus
> >what you think I was thinking but didn't write.
>
> Huh? It isn't easy to follow the meandering.
Um, you're meandering, Pamela. My post entitled 'Pamela's Cute Pig' was
entirely
founded on your shadowy argument- not measurements.
>
> >
> >>
> >> S-O-D (slime, obfuscate, divert). A legal tactic.
> >
> >The only diversion here is from you, Pamela. Not ONCE did you address
> >ANYTHING
> >related to my post. Heck, you never even once mentioned the shadow- THE
> >PRIMARY
> >SUBJECT OF MY POST.
>
> You were comfortable complaining about my essay without even having read
> it, weren't you? And now you are complaining that I am not reading your
> mind?
I've read your article. Every word of it. However, I chose to address the
shadow
issue first.
Its not that you're not reading my mind- YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT READING
MY POSTS. This post was about the shadow that you don't want to talk about,
so
you are bringing up measurements and ANYTHING else that suits you.
>
> Why not just spit it out Chad? Just what are you so lathered about?
The shadow! READ the post.
>
> >
> >Would that be a tactic of any significant derivation? Or, is it simply a
> >tactic to scream 'tactic', then
> >employ the same tactic you are screaming about?
> >
>
> Here's the gif showing the 'lapel flop'.
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
> My position is that Posner owes us all an apology for jumping to a
> sinister conclusion.
Posner wasn't the originator of the lapel flip, Pamela. Get your facts
straight. He
popularized it. Go find the true culprit and tell them that it was created
by a shadow
from a sign that was cast AWAY from Connally.
>That you choose to agree with him is up to you. Is
> that the problem? :-0
Do you read the posts at all? Apparently not. So far you have barely
addressed anything
from the original post, save to say that the shadow IS the lapel flip.
That's it. You refuse
to address anything and are constantly changing the subject.
Funny how you accuse everyone else of doing such things, yet are making it
routine with
your own posts.
Let's try and discuss this shadow thing, shall we?
Chad
>
> Pamela
>
>
> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A
> Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
>
> "Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary
> devoted to SS-100-X. It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on
> December 23, 2004. Here is a link to the schedule:
> http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson, Vaughn's widow
> and I are interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay
> "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002) was used as the basis for
> the assassination section. For more information on the JFK Assassination
> Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com. Also, for more
> detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join jfk100x on
> Yahoogroups.com. For information about my life away from research, visit
> www.themagicflute.org
>
Pamela McElwain-Brown
<NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
Here is the gif that shows the orientation of Zapruder, the limo, and
JBC:
http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
1 --In Chad's 'flop' scenario he has chosen to ignore my statement
that the small side window of the limousine was involved in the
refraction of the shadow that fell on JBC's chest.
2 -- In Chad's haste to jump to the conclusion that this shadow could
not be a shadow, he has managed to assemble photos from other
orientations which do nothing to help orient the reader to the
Z-frames.
3 -- Chad's strawman in no way addresses the question that the 'flop'
could not be a shadow.
So, in case you don't get the picture, as I realize sometime it has to
be v-e-r-y clearly spelled out for the LNT's -- No.
In fact, I have encouraged him to debate his point on the Ed Forum.
Perhaps you'd like to do it for him?
Pamela :-)
Paul Seaton
Care to elaborate on the unearthly optics involved in that ?
You might start by explaining how a shadow can be refracted ??
>
> 2 -- In Chad's haste to jump to the conclusion that this shadow could
> not be a shadow, he has managed to assemble photos from other
> orientations which do nothing to help orient the reader to the
> Z-frames.
I'm beginning to think you have no idea how shadows are formed.
Shadows are formed when an opaque object comes between a source of
illumination and the object in shadow.
In this case, the opaque object is the Stemmons sign, the source of the
illumination is the sun, & the object in shadow is JBC.
If you haven't worked it out yet, JBC is SOUTH of the Stemmons sign, and any
shadow that sign casts MUST FALL NORTH.
Consequently .... this little pig isn't going to market.
>
> 3 -- Chad's strawman in no way addresses the question that the 'flop'
> could not be a shadow.
It addresses - & demolishes - your bold contention that the 'flop' is the
shadow *of the Stemmons sign.*
If you want to claim it's the shadow of something else, go ahead. (Hint : I
suggest you at least pick an object that is SOUTH of JBC.)
>
> So, in case you don't get the picture, as I realize sometime it has to
> be v-e-r-y clearly spelled out for the LNT's -- No.
Then you have no idea how shadows are formed.
>
> In fact, I have encouraged him to debate his point on the Ed Forum.
> Perhaps you'd like to do it for him?
Not really.
--
Paul Seaton
"Once you have eliminated the unacceptable (on no grounds whatever) then
whatever remains, however physically impossible, might just be successfully
promoted as the truth, to a really dumb audience."
Chad Zimmerman
Except the shadow is not there, Pamela. Are you now suggesting that
the clear window is reflecting the shadow that is on the ground and
onto Connally?
At best, you might have the argument that any light coming through that
window may have been reduced due to the shadow on the ground. Then,
of course, you'd have to realize that the top was off of the limo and the
sunshine was radiating down, illuminating the occupants.
But, I'll bet you stick with some refraction claim.
>
> 2 -- In Chad's haste to jump to the conclusion that this shadow could
> not be a shadow, he has managed to assemble photos from other
> orientations which do nothing to help orient the reader to the
> Z-frames.
Yeah, those damn photos show the shadow you are talking about on the
ground, rather than the Zfilm frames (closeup I might add) that don't show
the Stemmons Freeway shadow.
Sorry for getting specific with my choice of photos, Pamela.
>
> 3 -- Chad's strawman in no way addresses the question that the 'flop'
> could not be a shadow.
Huh? Did you read it yet? I said it could not be the Stemmons Freeway
sign's shadow. In fact, in another post, I said that it could potentially be
a
shadow- just not THAT one.
Are you actually reading posts or just replying?
>
> So, in case you don't get the picture, as I realize sometime it has to
> be v-e-r-y clearly spelled out for the LNT's -- No.
>
> In fact, I have encouraged him to debate his point on the Ed Forum.
> Perhaps you'd like to do it for him?
You did? When? And, why do I need to debate on another forum, when
we can debate it right here?
Of course, thus far, you haven't debated anything with me. The most you've
said
about the shadow is in this reply to Paul. In posts to me, you want to talk
about
measurements, not shadows.
Wonder why.
Chad
>
> Pamela :-)
>
> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
impossible,
> whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in
Scarlet,
> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
>
> "Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary
devoted to SS-100-X.
> It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here
is a link to the
> schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson,
Vaughn's widow and I are
> interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR
CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002)
> was used as the basis for the assassination section.
> For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine
SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com.
> Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join
jfk100x on Yahoogroups.com.
> For information about my life away from research, visit
www.themagicflute.org
>
Pamela McElwain-Brown
the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the
orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and
also JFK and JBC.
In addition, both are ignoring the gif of Z-frames which do show that
orientation as well as the fact that the perimiter of the shadow is
similar to that of the upper right corner of the Stemmons Freeway
sign.
http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
In addition, all if this discussion begs the question of whether or
not the 'flop' is actually a shadow.
I would cordially like to invite all of you who are interested in this
subject to consider also enrolling and posting at the Ed Forum, where
it seems that I am preaching to the choir. Fun though that is, I
would rather move forward.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
This sort of debate can only work to move things forward.
Pamela :-)
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet,
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
"Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary devoted to SS-100-X.
It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here is a link to the
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
I did. Now help me clarify what you are attempting to say. You have
dismissed the small side window of the limo as being a factor in how
light and shadow hit JBC, have pulled photos from other orientations
and claimed they represent that of Zapruder, and are also claiming by
inference that if there is no shadow from the Stemmons Freeway sign
that means the lapel 'flop' isn't a flop, am I right?
>
>>
>> >
>> > In addition,
>> >> he is pulling insignificant information out of context to attempt to
>> >> put his spin on the criticism..
>> >
>> >Bull. I quoted you DIRECTLY. It came right from the pig paper in
>question.
>> >You wrote it. You now don't want to discuss the shadow, but prefer other
>> >discussion- initiated by you.
>>
>> You confused the difference in height measurement between the difference
>> in clearance measurement. You have been and are now rambling all alone by
>> yourself, aren't you? I don't see you referencing anything that I said.
In your earlier posts you misrepresented the clearance and height
discrepancies. Am I supposed to just walk by that? Are you going to
acknowledge that you did so or should I just make an excuse for you?
>
>Pamela, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE STEMMONS FREEWAY SHADOW.
>
>That is it. I don't know what you keep mumbling about. I made no mention of
>such things in this thread.
You have made multiple misrepresentations of what I have said. Excuse
me for attempting to address them!
>
>I directly quoted your passage regarding the Stemmons Freeway sign shadow.
>Did
>you forget to read that?
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Let's clarify things:
>> >>
>> >> 1 -- No SB scenario has ever been proven.
>> >
>> >Not a point in this issue, but thanks for reminding us. If I were a rabid
>> >CT, I'd
>> >say that you are side-stepping, diverting if you will.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2 -- The WC used incorrect limo measurements, per the HSCA-- 6 inches
>> >> clearance v 2.5 inches, and 1.5 inches height difference when there
>> >> was at least 3 inches (8 cm) difference.
>> >
>> >Again, not material in any capacity to this discussion. Glad to see that
>> >you've figured
>> >out that 8cm isn't 6". You're welcome.
>>
>> The clearance distance was never at issue. The height difference is what
>> you are trying to make an issue out of. But you're not having any
>> success, are you?
>
>No, read the damned post, Pamela. I never made an issue of any height. I
>made
You made an ERROR about the height and clearance discrepancy. I
pointed it out and corrected it. Can we stay on the same page now?
>an issue of your claim regarding the STEMMONS FREEWAY SIGN SHADOW
>that you reference in your article.
I am saying two things -- (1) I think the 'flop' is caused by a
shadow; (2) because of the orientation of the Stemmons Freeway sign
and the similarity in outline of the upper right corner of the sign
and the shadow, that this is what -- refracting through the limo side
window-- caused the shadow.
>
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thus, the LNTs have yet to even prove an SB scenario.
>> >
>> >Red leader, stay on target. I was talking about the shadow, not
>everything
>> >except
>> >the shadow.
>>
>> I was replying to your misrepresentations of the difference in
>> measurements between the WC and HSCA.. You do recall rambling on about
>> that, don't you?
>
>I'm talking about the shadow. Is that so hard to comprehend, or would you
>prefer
>not talking about it?
You would apparently perfer to forget your own error Chad in mixing up
the clearance and height differences. Your choice.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >What are they
>> >> doing assuming it has been proven and demanding that those who
>> >> disagree with it put up their proof?
>> >
>> >I don't know. That's not was I was addressing, was it? Did you, perhaps,
>> >read
>> >someone else's post and, perhaps, attribute it to me?
>>
>> You were complaining about the fact that I have pointed out serious
>> discrepancies between the measurements used by the WC and the HSCA to
>> attempt to prove their SB scenarios.
>
>Not in this thread.
Are you acknowledging your error so we can move on from this?
>
>>
>> >
>> >I was talking about the shadow.
>>
>> You were misrepresenting measurements. I thought you had acknowledged the
>> 'lapel flop' was nothing more than a shadow. Posner jumped to an
>> incorrect conclusion.
>
>Bull. What shadow? The Stemmons sign? Please do some research. That's
>impossible.
>I posted numerous photos that show this to be wrong.
Chad has removed an element of the equation and then claims the
equation to be 'wrong'. That is called a strawman argument Chad.
>This post was entirely
>based upon
>a shadow that has taken you 3 posts to acknowledge. I did not bring up
>distances in this
>post, did I?
You also misrepresented the measurements. Hopefully you will
acknowledge that and move on.
>
>>
>> >Write it down. Perhaps you and Tony can get
>> >together and read my posts fully and take notes on what I actually said
>> >versus
>> >what you think I was thinking but didn't write.
>>
>> Huh? It isn't easy to follow the meandering.
>
>Um, you're meandering, Pamela. My post entitled 'Pamela's Cute Pig' was
>entirely
>founded on your shadowy argument- not measurements.
QUOTE ON
>has resorted to some of the more typical LNT tactics
Yeah, facts. Damn those things.
Kind of like that damn tactic I used to show that 8cm isn't 6"...it's
called
proper conversion
beyond your editing.
QUOTE OFF
That is your misrepresentation of the measurements. 8cm refers to the
height discrepancy of the WC/HSCA of 1.5/8cm; 6" refers to the
clearance discrepancy of the WC/HSCA of 6"/2.5
You introduced it Chad. Now you want to drop it. Fine.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> S-O-D (slime, obfuscate, divert). A legal tactic.
>> >
>> >The only diversion here is from you, Pamela. Not ONCE did you address
>> >ANYTHING
>> >related to my post. Heck, you never even once mentioned the shadow- THE
>> >PRIMARY
>> >SUBJECT OF MY POST.
>>
>> You were comfortable complaining about my essay without even having read
>> it, weren't you? And now you are complaining that I am not reading your
>> mind?
>
>I've read your article. Every word of it. However, I chose to address the
>shadow
>issue first.
You have misrepresented what you term 'the shadow issue'.
>
>Its not that you're not reading my mind- YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT READING
>MY POSTS. This post was about the shadow that you don't want to talk about,
>so
>you are bringing up measurements and ANYTHING else that suits you.
Untrue Chad. You are a mod. Surely you take responsibility for your
statements. See above.
>
>>
>> Why not just spit it out Chad? Just what are you so lathered about?
>
>The shadow! READ the post.
Stop misrepresenting it.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Would that be a tactic of any significant derivation? Or, is it simply a
>> >tactic to scream 'tactic', then
>> >employ the same tactic you are screaming about?
>> >
>>
>> Here's the gif showing the 'lapel flop'.
>>
>> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>>
>> My position is that Posner owes us all an apology for jumping to a
>> sinister conclusion.
>
>Posner wasn't the originator of the lapel flip, Pamela. Get your facts
>straight. He
>popularized it. Go find the true culprit and tell them that it was created
>by a shadow
>from a sign that was cast AWAY from Connally.
>
>>That you choose to agree with him is up to you. Is
>> that the problem? :-0
>
>Do you read the posts at all? Apparently not. So far you have barely
>addressed anything
>from the original post, save to say that the shadow IS the lapel flip.
>That's it. You refuse
>to address anything and are constantly changing the subject.
>
>Funny how you accuse everyone else of doing such things, yet are making it
>routine with
>your own posts.
Why are you misrepresenting my statements and then criticizing my
response to your strawman? What good do you see coming from that?
>
>Let's try and discuss this shadow thing, shall we?
>
Which version -- your strawman or the one I presented?
Pamela
Chad Zimmerman
> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in
> the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the
> orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and
> also JFK and JBC.
LOL. The car window is in front and to the right of JBC. The shadow
is STILL on the ground.
>
> In addition, both are ignoring the gif of Z-frames which do show that
> orientation as well as the fact that the perimiter of the shadow is
> similar to that of the upper right corner of the Stemmons Freeway
> sign.
And you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that every photograph taken
within minutes of the assassination that shows the shadow places in a
position
that cannot reach the car. Period.
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
> In addition, all if this discussion begs the question of whether or
> not the 'flop' is actually a shadow.
Yeah, I'd say- particularly the Stemmons sign shadow that is on the ground.
>
> I would cordially like to invite all of you who are interested in this
> subject to consider also enrolling and posting at the Ed Forum, where
> it seems that I am preaching to the choir. Fun though that is, I
> would rather move forward.
I'll bet you would like to continue preaching to all of those that don't
question
anything.
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
>
> This sort of debate can only work to move things forward.
What, simply agreeing with you to move forward? Come on.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
Okay. Forward progress. 3 posts and finally an answer.
Now help me clarify what you are attempting to say. You have
> dismissed the small side window of the limo as being a factor in how
> light and shadow hit JBC, have pulled photos from other orientations
> and claimed they represent that of Zapruder,
Huh? You tell me where I said that. I never did. I said the shadow wasn't
where YOU need it to be and is verified extensively by the photographic
record. By saying such, you must be ASSUMING that the sun was in such
a different spot as to cast a shadow through the window and onto Connally.
and are also claiming by
> inference that if there is no shadow from the Stemmons Freeway sign
> that means the lapel 'flop' isn't a flop, am I right?
Um, shall I write this in 'Sherlock' English?
M'dear Pamela, thou can see that the shadow plainly rests on the vegetative
knoll and not the street. Therefore, m'dear McElwain-Brown, we can safely
rule out the shadow. And, henceforth, m'dear- we dost thou have a m'strey
within our hands.
It isn't the Stemmons shadow, Pamela.
Here's an idea. Go to the local auto recycling center (auto heap) and buy
a similar side window- or any window. Since its December, put up a nice
big snowman, casting its shadow in a position similar to that in the
photographic
record. Now, stand several feet away on the opposite side of the snowman's
shadow,
holding that piece of glass and see if it now casts a shadow on you.
It won't. Know why? (Hint: the shadow is being cast the other direction)
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > In addition,
>>> >> he is pulling insignificant information out of context to attempt to
>>> >> put his spin on the criticism..
>>> >
>>> >Bull. I quoted you DIRECTLY. It came right from the pig paper in
>>question.
>>> >You wrote it. You now don't want to discuss the shadow, but prefer
>>> >other
>>> >discussion- initiated by you.
>>>
>>> You confused the difference in height measurement between the difference
>>> in clearance measurement. You have been and are now rambling all alone
>>> by
>>> yourself, aren't you? I don't see you referencing anything that I said.
>
> In your earlier posts you misrepresented the clearance and height
> discrepancies. Am I supposed to just walk by that? Are you going to
> acknowledge that you did so or should I just make an excuse for you?
I don't know. I am not sure what post you are referring to. Even if I
confused something,
the point stands. You have yet to prove that any of those differences keep a
bullet from
hitting Connally.
Therefore, you've proven that its never been proven by illustrating
something that's never
been proven to make a difference. Oy.
Since I can't seem to even access my original post on this thread, I'm not
sure which
post you are recalling. Perhaps one that pointed out that 8cm doesn't equal
6"?
>
>>
>>Pamela, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE STEMMONS FREEWAY SHADOW.
>>
>>That is it. I don't know what you keep mumbling about. I made no mention
>>of
>>such things in this thread.
>
> You have made multiple misrepresentations of what I have said. Excuse
> me for attempting to address them!
Um, aren't you the same Pamela M-B that doesn't like to address other
subjects
not introduced in the thread?
If you look at my original post, you'll see that there's nary a remark about
distances
cited in your article.
>
>>
>>I directly quoted your passage regarding the Stemmons Freeway sign shadow.
>>Did
>>you forget to read that?
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Let's clarify things:
>>> >>
>>> >> 1 -- No SB scenario has ever been proven.
>>> >
>>> >Not a point in this issue, but thanks for reminding us. If I were a
>>> >rabid
>>> >CT, I'd
>>> >say that you are side-stepping, diverting if you will.
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 2 -- The WC used incorrect limo measurements, per the HSCA-- 6 inches
>>> >> clearance v 2.5 inches, and 1.5 inches height difference when there
>>> >> was at least 3 inches (8 cm) difference.
>>> >
>>> >Again, not material in any capacity to this discussion. Glad to see
>>> >that
>>> >you've figured
>>> >out that 8cm isn't 6". You're welcome.
>>>
>>> The clearance distance was never at issue. The height difference is
>>> what
>>> you are trying to make an issue out of. But you're not having any
>>> success, are you?
>>
>>No, read the damned post, Pamela. I never made an issue of any height. I
>>made
>
> You made an ERROR about the height and clearance discrepancy. I
> pointed it out and corrected it. Can we stay on the same page now?
No. That is apparently in some other thread.
>
>>an issue of your claim regarding the STEMMONS FREEWAY SIGN SHADOW
>>that you reference in your article.
>
> I am saying two things -- (1) I think the 'flop' is caused by a
> shadow;
Yep, we all know that by now.
(2) because of the orientation of the Stemmons Freeway sign
> and the similarity in outline of the upper right corner of the sign
> and the shadow, that this is what -- refracting through the limo side
> window-- caused the shadow.
So, its your impression that: since the 'orientation' (shape?) of the sign
and that of the shadow are similar, then (ergo!) it has to be the shadow
of the Stemmons sign?
The photos say otherwise.
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Thus, the LNTs have yet to even prove an SB scenario.
>>> >
>>> >Red leader, stay on target. I was talking about the shadow, not
>>everything
>>> >except
>>> >the shadow.
>>>
>>> I was replying to your misrepresentations of the difference in
>>> measurements between the WC and HSCA.. You do recall rambling on about
>>> that, don't you?
>>
>>I'm talking about the shadow. Is that so hard to comprehend, or would you
>>prefer
>>not talking about it?
>
> You would apparently perfer to forget your own error Chad in mixing up
> the clearance and height differences. Your choice.
Well, this thread is about the damned shadow, not an error that I may have
made
elsewhere. I still don't know what message you are talking about. Not all
the posts
have been downloading on my computer. For instance, the original post on
this thread
does not show up here or on Google (last I checked).
>>
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >What are they
>>> >> doing assuming it has been proven and demanding that those who
>>> >> disagree with it put up their proof?
>>> >
>>> >I don't know. That's not was I was addressing, was it? Did you,
>>> >perhaps,
>>> >read
>>> >someone else's post and, perhaps, attribute it to me?
>>>
>>> You were complaining about the fact that I have pointed out serious
>>> discrepancies between the measurements used by the WC and the HSCA to
>>> attempt to prove their SB scenarios.
>>
>>Not in this thread.
>
> Are you acknowledging your error so we can move on from this?
If I made an error, sure. Yippee! We all make them. However, I was talking
about
the shadow issue, you apparently aren't ready to move on just yet.
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >I was talking about the shadow.
>>>
>>> You were misrepresenting measurements. I thought you had acknowledged
>>> the
>>> 'lapel flop' was nothing more than a shadow. Posner jumped to an
>>> incorrect conclusion.
>>
>>Bull. What shadow? The Stemmons sign? Please do some research. That's
>>impossible.
>>I posted numerous photos that show this to be wrong.
>
> Chad has removed an element of the equation and then claims the
> equation to be 'wrong'. That is called a strawman argument Chad.
What the hell are you talking about? You brought up the damned shadow.
I pointed out how it is impossible.
The issue is the shadow. You brought it up. Now, when confronted with
evidence,
you are saying that the argument is a strawman. Go figure.
>
>>This post was entirely
>>based upon
>>a shadow that has taken you 3 posts to acknowledge. I did not bring up
>>distances in this
>>post, did I?
>
> You also misrepresented the measurements. Hopefully you will
> acknowledge that and move on.
Okay, fine. Even though I don't know specifically which, let's say I did
make
an error and move on. I'm not beyond that. Are you?
>>
>>>
>>> >Write it down. Perhaps you and Tony can get
>>> >together and read my posts fully and take notes on what I actually said
>>> >versus
>>> >what you think I was thinking but didn't write.
>>>
>>> Huh? It isn't easy to follow the meandering.
>>
>>Um, you're meandering, Pamela. My post entitled 'Pamela's Cute Pig' was
>>entirely
>>founded on your shadowy argument- not measurements.
>
> QUOTE ON
>
>>has resorted to some of the more typical LNT tactics
>
> Yeah, facts. Damn those things.
>
> Kind of like that damn tactic I used to show that 8cm isn't 6"...it's
> called
> proper conversion
> beyond your editing.
>
> QUOTE OFF
>
> That is your misrepresentation of the measurements. 8cm refers to the
> height discrepancy of the WC/HSCA of 1.5/8cm; 6" refers to the
> clearance discrepancy of the WC/HSCA of 6"/2.5
What I was referring to was your statement of:
"In addition, the height differential used by the WC was a mere one and
1/2". The HSCA
later stated that this difference was 8 cm, or app. 6". Quite a difference,
don't you think?"
YOU plainly said that that 8 cm = app. 6". Or, at least grammatically that
is what it says.
Grab a grammar book and see what it says about using or with and without a
comma.
8cm = 3.15", not 6"
Its all there in one short sentence, posted with your name attached to it.
Explain that, would you? Either you equated it or meant something else.
Which is it?
>
> You introduced it Chad. Now you want to drop it. Fine.
Actually, after rereading that, maybe I would like to talk about that
again.;-)
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> S-O-D (slime, obfuscate, divert). A legal tactic.
>>> >
>>> >The only diversion here is from you, Pamela. Not ONCE did you address
>>> >ANYTHING
>>> >related to my post. Heck, you never even once mentioned the shadow- THE
>>> >PRIMARY
>>> >SUBJECT OF MY POST.
>>>
>>> You were comfortable complaining about my essay without even having read
>>> it, weren't you? And now you are complaining that I am not reading your
>>> mind?
>>
>>I've read your article. Every word of it. However, I chose to address the
>>shadow
>>issue first.
>
> You have misrepresented what you term 'the shadow issue'.
You sound like Tony, screaming 'misrepresentation' all over the place. I
misrepresented
nothing about the shadow. I have posted the evidence. You, until recently,
didn't want
to discuss it. I provided your text verbatim. I am arguing that you are
wrongs- as well
as a few others.
I misrepresented nothing.
>>
>>Its not that you're not reading my mind- YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT READING
>>MY POSTS. This post was about the shadow that you don't want to talk
>>about,
>>so
>>you are bringing up measurements and ANYTHING else that suits you.
>
> Untrue Chad. You are a mod. Surely you take responsibility for your
> statements. See above.
Yeah, 8cm does not equal 6 inches- as YOU wrote it.
>>
>>>
>>> Why not just spit it out Chad? Just what are you so lathered about?
>>
>>The shadow! READ the post.
>
> Stop misrepresenting it.
I'm not. I used your exact words, Pamela. People do that so the other
posters don't
scream and stomp about hollering about misrepresentation.
You have yet to prove your point regarding the shadow, and I suspect you
never
will because it is not possible.
Is the shadow on the grass in all of those photos that I posted? Yes or no?
(Yes is the only answer that is correct)
Now, given that the shadow is on the grass and the car is in the street, how
did a piece
of translucent glass refract the shadow across Connally in an open limo with
the sun directly overhead?
Its not a strawman. Its a valid argument regarding YOUR theory. I'll never
understand why CT's scream about strawmen all the time. It must make you
feel better or something. But, it IS a real AND pertinent issue, Pamela.
>>
>>Let's try and discuss this shadow thing, shall we?
>>
> Which version -- your strawman or the one I presented?
Prove mine a strawman, Pamela. I dare you. Of course, I'm going to ask for
better technique than your 'it looks like it' argument.
Chad
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in
> the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the
> orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and
> also JFK and JBC.
Since you are replying to my article here, I'm assuming that it is my
argument you're calling a "strawman," which is quite obviously false.
Had I addressed an argument you had never made as if you *had* made it,
then *that* would be a strawman. But you have indeed specifically said
that the "lapel flip" is actually a shadow from the Stemmons Freeway
sign, & it was precisely that claim that I addressed, so it is utterly
impossible for what I posted to be a "strawman."
Only if I addressed something you *didn't* say would it have been a
strawman.
> In addition, both are ignoring the gif of Z-frames which do show that
> orientation as well as the fact that the perimiter of the shadow is
> similar to that of the upper right corner of the Stemmons Freeway
> sign.
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
I did not "ignore" that gif; I instead looked right at it prior to
posting my reply, & am looking at it again right now as I'm typing these
words, & I clearly see that it does not show any portion of the shadow
of the sign on the ground, & thus does not confirm that the shadow was
extending toward the street at *all*. Chad's pic, on the other hand, in
the article in which he began this thread, a photo taken bare minutes
after the assassination, with absurd plainness shows the *entire* shadow
of the sign on the ground extending *away* from the street, not toward
it. For some strange reason you are utterly refusing to discuss that
photo directly.
You have also refused in this present reply to discuss what I pointed
out to you about the celestial impossibility of a shadow of that sign
extending toward that street near noon in Dallas in late November.
Let's go through this again. November 22 is only a month away from the
winter solstice, the latter of which is the day of the year in which,
due to the tilt of the earth's axis, the sun is at its southernmost
point in the sky, & directly over the Tropic of Capricorn, which is
thousands of miles south of Dallas. In late November the sun is already
fairly close to its southernmost point. Shadows cast by the sun
anywhere within an hour or two of high noon (12:30 p.m. CST is indeed
quite close to high noon) are going to have a distinct northerly trend
because the sun is shining from a position significantly SOUTH of
straight overhead. It is simply an utter impossibility for the shadow
of an object under the sun to extend in any southerly direction
whatsoever at that time of year at that latitude at that time of day.
The shadow will instead be to the north, with an additional easterly or
westerly element depending on how long before or after high noon it is.
But this will be northeast or northwest to a greater or lesser degree,
not southeast or southwest. The limo was not even remotely north of the
sign as it approached the sign, except far up the street nearer the
intersection of Elm & Houston, since the street curves slightly south
after that intersection, when the limo was still much too far away for
the shadow of the sign to fall upon it. By the time it got close to the
sign, however, the limo was SOUTHEAST of it & passed directly to the
SOUTH of it. It would be totally inconsistent with the position of the
sun in the sky at that time of day at that time of year in Dallas for
the shadow to reach anywhere near the limo as it passed, & in fact
impossible for the shadow to reach into the street at all, much less all
the way to the center lane of 3 lanes.
What you see may or may not be "similar to that of the upper right
corner of the Stemmons Freeway sign," but no matter how "similar" it is,
it is simply an impossibility for that to actually BE the shadow of the
sign as cast by the sun. That shadow could not have extended toward the
limo at all.
> In addition, all if this discussion begs the question of whether or
> not the 'flop' is actually a shadow.
Maybe it is. If so, it is a shadow of some other object. Not the sign.
> I would cordially like to invite all of you who are interested in this
> subject to consider also enrolling and posting at the Ed Forum, where
> it seems that I am preaching to the choir. Fun though that is, I
> would rather move forward.
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
>
> This sort of debate can only work to move things forward.
Indeed, & included in moving forward would be your acknowledgement of
the tilt of the earth's axis, a phenomenon which has been universally
accepted in the worldwide scientific community for longer than any of us
have been alive.
Paul Seaton
> On 8 Dec 2004 11:51:33 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
[..]
> >>
> >> Why not just spit it out Chad? Just what are you so lathered about?
> >
> >The shadow! READ the post.
>
> Stop misrepresenting it.
See, poor Pamela is of the opinion that from ZAPRUDER'S POV, maybe the
Stemmons shadow falls SOUTH !!!
Pamela, listen very closely & try to understand :
In Dallas, on 22/11/63 NO SHADOWS FELL SOUTH.
If you don't understand why that is, please get 1) a textbook about
astronomy. & 2) a textbook about basic optics, & come back when you've read
them.
"Just what are you so lathered about?"
Jeez. !!
--
Paul Seaton
Paul Seaton
> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in
> the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the
> orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and
> also JFK and JBC.
>
> In addition, both are ignoring the gif of Z-frames which do show that
> orientation as well as the fact that the perimiter of the shadow is
> similar to that of the upper right corner of the Stemmons Freeway
> sign.
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
> In addition, all if this discussion begs the question of whether or
> not the 'flop' is actually a shadow.
>
> I would cordially like to invite all of you who are interested in this
> subject to consider also enrolling and posting at the Ed Forum, where
> it seems that I am preaching to the choir. Fun though that is, I
> would rather move forward.
Doesn't say much for the general state of scientific intelligence over at
the 'Ed Forum', now does it ?? :-)
--
Paul Seaton
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Huh?
>that fell on JBC's chest.
>
>2 -- In Chad's haste to jump to the conclusion that this shadow could
>not be a shadow, he has managed to assemble photos from other
>orientations which do nothing to help orient the reader to the
>Z-frames.
It seems to be you jumping to conclusions ... you've jumped and left
the science of what you are positing behind .... dare i say, in the
shadows, but that of course would depend on the position of the sun
relative to the object ......
>
>3 -- Chad's strawman in no way addresses the question that the 'flop'
>could not be a shadow.
Chad's comment is in no way a "strawman" .... maybe look that up along
with shadows.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
Good info for her. Will she heed it?
Barb :-)
Paul Seaton
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qb1hr0dg2njgtj55s...@4ax.com...
Don't bet on it .. ;-)
>
> Barb :-)
>
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
Can you post a clear closeup of the "flip" frame ... one that shows
that the outline of the lapel laying in place is ... gulp ... gone in
that frame? Seems like the easiest way to show this ... if someone
else has already posted one, I apologize, I missed it.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>In article <aa6fr0pruu4bad43t...@4ax.com>,
> Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in
>> the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the
>> orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and
>> also JFK and JBC.
>
>Since you are replying to my article here, I'm assuming that it is my
>argument you're calling a "strawman," which is quite obviously false.
>Had I addressed an argument you had never made as if you *had* made it,
>then *that* would be a strawman. But you have indeed specifically said
>that the "lapel flip" is actually a shadow from the Stemmons Freeway
>sign, & it was precisely that claim that I addressed, so it is utterly
>impossible for what I posted to be a "strawman."
>
>Only if I addressed something you *didn't* say would it have been a
>strawman.
Exactly. How silly to call what you and Chad argued in reply a
"strawman" ... and she apparently stated the same thing on the
education forum ... yoy.
So, will Pamela "acknowledge" the science on which Chad and Caeruleo
argue against her thesis? Hmmmmm....
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
Either that or they are tittering amongst themselves too polite to
point out ....
Barb :-)
Pamela McElwain-Brown
me to defend it.
Pamela
On 9 Dec 2004 08:55:48 -0500, "Paul Seaton"
<NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:205fr0dsqh305lnfn...@4ax.com...
>> On 8 Dec 2004 11:51:33 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
>[..]
>
>> >>
>> >> Why not just spit it out Chad? Just what are you so lathered about?
>> >
>> >The shadow! READ the post.
>>
>> Stop misrepresenting it.
>
>See, poor Pamela is of the opinion that from ZAPRUDER'S POV, maybe the
>Stemmons shadow falls SOUTH !!!
>
>Pamela, listen very closely & try to understand :
>
>In Dallas, on 22/11/63 NO SHADOWS FELL SOUTH.
>
>If you don't understand why that is, please get 1) a textbook about
>astronomy. & 2) a textbook about basic optics, & come back when you've read
>them.
>
>"Just what are you so lathered about?"
>
>Jeez. !!
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet,
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
"Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary devoted to SS-100-X.
It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here is a link to the
schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson, Vaughn's widow and I are
interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002)
was used as the basis for the assassination section.
For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com.
Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join jfk100x at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk100x/ (Yahoo Groups).
Drumrolls3
>From: Caeruleo caer...@yahoo.com
>Date: 12/9/2004 8:14 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <caeruleo-CFE2BD...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
>
TOP POST FOR PAMELA:
First, you say that the lapel buldge is caused by the window frame of the
limo.
You were shown to be wrong.
Then, you say the lapel buldge was caused by a shadow from the Stemmons
Freeway sign.
All one would have to do is look at Kellerman as he comes out from behind the
sign, and notice no such shadow appears on him. Then take a look at JFK as he
is in the same position JBC was in only a fraction of a second before him.
No...no shadow on JFK either.
Then, all one has to do is look at the shadows cast by the people lining Elm
Street, the tree in the background, and the limo itself on the street and see
that Pamela has no idea what she is talking about.
Steve
Pamela McElwain-Brown
>In article <aa6fr0pruu4bad43t...@4ax.com>,
> Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in
>> the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the
>> orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and
>> also JFK and JBC.
>
>Since you are replying to my article here, I'm assuming that it is my
>argument you're calling a "strawman," which is quite obviously false.
>Had I addressed an argument you had never made as if you *had* made it,
>then *that* would be a strawman. But you have indeed specifically said
>that the "lapel flip" is actually a shadow from the Stemmons Freeway
>sign, & it was precisely that claim that I addressed, so it is utterly
>impossible for what I posted to be a "strawman."
>
>Only if I addressed something you *didn't* say would it have been a
>strawman.
You left out some things I did say. Hence it is a strawman. See
above.
Pamelab
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet,
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
"Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary devoted to SS-100-X.
It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here is a link to the
schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson, Vaughn's widow and I are
interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002)
was used as the basis for the assassination section.
For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com.
Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join jfk100x at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk100x/ (Yahoo Groups).
Chad Zimmerman
> On 9 Dec 2004 08:14:47 -0500, Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <aa6fr0pruu4bad43t...@4ax.com>,
> > Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in
> >> the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the
> >> orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and
> >> also JFK and JBC.
> >
> >Since you are replying to my article here, I'm assuming that it is my
> >argument you're calling a "strawman," which is quite obviously false.
> >Had I addressed an argument you had never made as if you *had* made it,
> >then *that* would be a strawman. But you have indeed specifically said
> >that the "lapel flip" is actually a shadow from the Stemmons Freeway
> >sign, & it was precisely that claim that I addressed, so it is utterly
> >impossible for what I posted to be a "strawman."
> >
> >Only if I addressed something you *didn't* say would it have been a
> >strawman.
>
> You left out some things I did say. Hence it is a strawman. See
> above.
You don't know what a strawman is, do you?
We've demonstrably shown your hypothesis to be unscientific and impossible.
Therefore, there is no need to keep including links to pictures that don't
show
what you say it shows. In order to demonstrate the fallacy that you are
perpetuating,
you have to show the correct position of the shadow as it fell that day.
Showing the Zfilm is about as relevant as posting a picture of a
moose...when we're
talking about elm trees.
The only strawman here is your insistance that the shadow is from the
Stemmons sign.
Your argument is a strawman as it is extremely weak and has been easily
refuted.
Chad
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.806 / Virus Database: 548 - Release Date: 12/6/2004
Chad Zimmerman
> Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
> me to defend it.
Translation: anyone that tries to argue against Pamela is going to be
labeled as a straw
artist.
One entry found for straw man.
Main Entry: straw man
Function: noun
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set
up only to be easily confuted
One entry found for confute.
Main Entry: con·fute
Pronunciation: k&n-'fyüt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): con·fut·ed; con·fut·ing
Etymology: Latin confutare to check, silence
1 : to overwhelm in argument : refute conclusively <Elijah... confuted
the prophets of Baal -- G. B. Shaw>
2 obsolete : CONFOUND
- con·fut·er noun
So, in other words, the arguments set forth by Caeruleo, Paul, Barb and
myself
are all weak or imaginary, as well as easily confuted, or easily refuted.
However, you have not yet proven your point, although it is allegedly and
easy
thing to do by definition.
You have been shown several photos showing the Stemmons Freeway shadow
on the ground, not in the street. You ignore those and prefer a .gif of
closeup
frames of the Zapruder film, ironically after castigating me for using those
frames
and admitting that it is better seen in the larger frame format.
You are declaring this a strawman solely because you refuse to deal with the
scientific argument at hand.
Your argument involves film frames that demonstrably cannot show the
Stemmons
Freeway sign for the reasons explained to you by numerous posters.
Therefore, I am not required to use frames that do not show that shadow. I
prefer
to use frames that DO show the shadow that YOU brought up.
IOW- The Z film cannot show the Stemmons sign shadow. Between Caeruleo, Paul
and
myself, we've proven that.
Now, what is the proper word to describe what you are doing?
Chad
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.806 / Virus Database: 548 - Release Date: 12/6/2004
Chad Zimmerman
> On 9 Dec 2004 08:55:58 -0500, "Paul Seaton"
WhaaaaaaHaaaaaaaa! Translation: nobody over there questions her analysis.
Reality: There are more CT posters here than LN posters. Therefore, there
must
not be any LN posters over there that know anything about shadows either.
Chad
>
> Pamela
>
> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
impossible,
> whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in
Scarlet,
> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
>
> "Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary
devoted to SS-100-X.
> It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here
is a link to the
> schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson,
Vaughn's widow and I are
> interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR
CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002)
> was used as the basis for the assassination section.
> For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine
SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com.
> Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join
jfk100x at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk100x/ (Yahoo Groups).
> For information about my life away from research, visit
www.themagicflute.org
>
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2004 08:14:47 -0500, Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <aa6fr0pruu4bad43t...@4ax.com>,
> > Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in
> >> the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the
> >> orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and
> >> also JFK and JBC.
> >
> >Since you are replying to my article here, I'm assuming that it is my
> >argument you're calling a "strawman," which is quite obviously false.
> >Had I addressed an argument you had never made as if you *had* made it,
> >then *that* would be a strawman. But you have indeed specifically said
> >that the "lapel flip" is actually a shadow from the Stemmons Freeway
> >sign, & it was precisely that claim that I addressed, so it is utterly
> >impossible for what I posted to be a "strawman."
> >
> >Only if I addressed something you *didn't* say would it have been a
> >strawman.
>
> You left out some things I did say.
What do you mean by "left out"? I was addressing *only* your claim that
part of the shadow of the sign is falling upon Connally, nothing else.
I addressed everything I needed to address about that, merely by noting
that the tilt of the earth's axis makes it an absolute irrefutable
impossibility that the shadow of that sign as cast by the sun can extend
into that street in Dallas at that time of day at that time of year.
> Hence it is a strawman.
Nope, you are again using the word incorrectly. It would only be a
"strawman" if I were acting as if you were making an argument you were
not really making. But you have indeed said that the lapel flip is
actually the shadow of the sign falling on him, & since it is that exact
claim that I was addressing very specifically, I posted no "strawman"
whatsoever.
> See
> above.
I've already seen the "above," & I'm telling you that a shadow of the
sign extending into the street is a celestial impossibility because of
the tilt of the earth's axis. It doesn't matter in the slightest what
you "say," as that will not change the tilt of the planet. You're the
one leaving out much more of what I'm saying than I left out of what
you're saying, since you haven't even addressed any portion of my
argument at all. Why do you keep refusing to address the obvious
position of the sun in the sky at the time of the assassination?
You yourself have surely noticed, no matter where you live in the
northern hemisphere, that the sun is a good deal more southerly in late
November than it is in, say, June, correct? Additionally, like almost
all of us, you first learned about the tilt of the earth's axis many
years ago when you were still a mere child, right? You did know as well
that Elm Street runs nearly east-west at that point & that the sign was
on the NORTH side of the street; in fact, you've known all that for
quite a long time, isn't that true Pamela?
Why are you continuously refusing to address something as patently
obvious, & as universally accepted, as the tilt of the earth's axis?
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
> me to defend it.
No, what he's actually doing is rightfully pointing out to you that the
tilt of the earth's axis absolutely precludes even the remotest
possibility of the shadow of that sign extending toward the street at
all at that latitude at that time of day at that time of year.
Why do you keep refusing, & refusing, & refusing to address such a
simple & obvious thing, which was taught to all of us way back in grade
school for heaven's sake, as the position of the sun in the sky at that
latitude in the northern hemisphere at that time of year?
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Yeppers, & it clearly shows the shadow of a bystander in the grass
across the street pointing to the northeast. It is also the *left* side
of JBC's face, for example, which is being illuminated by the sun, which
means that given the direction his head is turned, the sun is shining on
his face from the southwest. The sun cannot both cast shadows to the
northeast & southeast at the same time, thus no shadow from the sign can
be reaching anywhere near Connally. Your own gif proves that beyond all
possible doubt.
Congratulations.
> 1 --In Chad's 'flop' scenario he has chosen to ignore my statement
> that the small side window of the limousine was involved in the
> refraction of the shadow that fell on JBC's chest.
Maybe a shadow of *something*, yes. But certainly not a shadow of the
*sign*. The sun was in entirely the wrong position in the sky for that.
> 2 -- In Chad's haste to jump to the conclusion that this shadow could
> not be a shadow, he has managed to assemble photos from other
> orientations which do nothing to help orient the reader to the
> Z-frames.
How on earth is another photo which clearly shows the shadow of the sign
on the grass pointing northeast, & thus more *away* from the street than
toward it, not entirely relevant to a claim that the sign's shadow fell
upon Connally?
Caeruleo
Barb Junkkarinen <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
It's not looking hopeful at this point, since she's already posted 2
replies to me in which she's utterly refused to make even the slightest
mention of the tilt of the earth's axis.
Doug Gosha
>
>
Obviously, not an arch knowledge stronghold either.
Doug
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Now Chad seems to be using another LNT tactic -- rather than
> acknowledge the burden of proof on the LNTs regarding 'their SBT' he
> attempts to push that responsibility back on the critic.
Perhaps he is, perhaps he isn't. What YOU are clearly & obviously
doing, however, is completely ignoring irrefutable evidence that no
shadow from the sign came anywhere near the limo. Throughout the
Zapruder film alone, one can clearly see the shadows of bystanders on
the south side of the street extending at an angle *toward* the street,
quite a few of them falling *on* the street. The shadows of many
bystanders on the north side of the street, the same side of the street
that the sign is on, can just as clearly be seen extending at an angle
*away* from the street. And if that weren't enough, we've all known
since childhood that the earth's axis is tilted, & that the sun is more
southerly in the months nearest the winter solstice.
> In addition,
> he is pulling insignificant information out of context to attempt to
> put his spin on the criticism..
I'm utterly failing to see how producing all sorts of photos which all
unanimously show the shadows of myriad persons & objects extending
northeast is "insignificant" in terms of addressing your specific claim
that the lapel flip is actually a shadow from the sign. Such a shadow
cannot be "refracted" through anything on the limo unless the shadow
*reaches* to the part of the limo which is doing the refracting. In
actual truth, the shadow comes nowhere near the limo at all, nor does it
even extend onto the street at all. The position of the sun in the sky
is totally wrong for that.
> Let's clarify things:
>
> 1 -- No SB scenario has ever been proven.
I agree. What on earth does that have to do with your obviously false
claim that the lapel flip is a shadow from the sign?
> 2 -- The WC used incorrect limo measurements, per the HSCA-- 6 inches
> clearance v 2.5 inches, and 1.5 inches height difference when there
> was at least 3 inches (8 cm) difference.
Could be. What on earth does that have to do with a shadow which quite
obviously cannot be pointing in any southerly direction whatsoever?
> Thus, the LNTs have yet to even prove an SB scenario.
I agree with that too. Likewise you have *certainly* failed to prove a
shadow from the sign falling on Connally, & in fact the absolute
impossibility of that is far greater than any degree of impossibility
for an SBT. "The" SBT hasn't been absolutely proven to have NOT
occurred either.
But a shadow from that sign extending toward the street at all, at that
time of year, at that time of day, in Dallas, is indeed absolutely
PROVEN to have not occurred.
It is an utter, absolute, irrefutable impossibility.
One doesn't even need a photo of it.
All one needs is knowledge of the tilt of the earth's axis, knowledge of
the time of year & time of day, & knowledge of the location of the sign
in relation to the street.
> What are they
> doing assuming it has been proven and demanding that those who
> disagree with it put up their proof?
Dunno. What on earth are you doing posting such an astounding absurdity
about that shadow which flies directly in the face of the known tilt of
the earth's axis?
> S-O-D (slime, obfuscate, divert). A legal tactic.
That seems to be what you're doing, since you never, ever, ever
acknowledge that there even *is* such a thing as a tilt to the earth's
axis, & instead dismiss all that as a "strawman."
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2004 14:31:33 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:qsvbr098g469nnonp...@4ax.com...
> >
> >(yep, more Cosell play by play)
> >
> >> Now Chad seems to be using another LNT tactic -- rather than
> >> acknowledge the burden of proof on the LNTs regarding 'their SBT' he
> >> attempts to push that responsibility back on the critic.
> >
> >Um, no. I was simply addressing ONE POINT of what you wrote in your
> >pig paper. A factual inconsistency.
>
> Untrue. You misrepresented the facts and confused them.
What "facts," exactly, did he "misrepresent" specifically about the ONE
POINT he was addressing, which is of course ONLY your claim that the
lapel flip is actually a shadow from the sign? That exact claim of
yours was indeed the one, & the only, point you made that he was
originally discussing when he started this thread. About that one
specific claim of yours, it is you alone who are ignoring, & ignoring, &
ignoring a rather LARGE body of FACTS, which include the tilt of the
earth's axis, something which has been known for centuries, the
resulting positions of the sun in the sky at different times of year due
to that tilt, & the obvious single direction that the shadow of EVERY
bystander & object which is seen in the film is pointing
> Unless you
> really don't know what you are talking about?
Rather obviously he does, since the direction of all shadows that can be
seen in the film falling on any part of the grass or pavement is
absurdly clear, & absurdly inconsistent with a shadow from the sign
extending even remotely towards the limo, & absurdly inconstent with the
vast body of information which is known about the tilt of the earth's
axis & how that affects the position of the sun in the sky at every
latitude on every day of the year.
> Here's the link to the essay "The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night"
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
I've read the whole thing. What of it? My problem with it is with this
sentence:
"And, as you can clearly see in the full-framed version of the Z-film,
the shadow came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway sign which was
between Zapruder and the limousine."
I've just watched, less than 30 minutes before typing these words, that
very full frame version of that very film on the MPI dvd, as well as all
the other versions of the film presented on it, & have yet again seen
how absurdly obvious it is that all shadows being cast by the sun are
pointing to the northeast, & that not one person or object on the north
side of the street, the same side of the street that the sign was on, is
casting a shadow onto any part of the street at all. Instead, every
last one of those shadows, without a single exception, extend at an
angle *away* from the street.
I have an equivalent problem with this from a more recent article of
yours shown near the bottom of the same page:
**********
I used a gif of Z-frames as an illustration of my point:
http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
The parts of the equation that I am
presenting are this:
1 -- Zapruder's orientation and
2 -- The small side window in the limo
contributed to the fact that the shadow,
3 -- Carrying the same perimeter shape as
the top right corner of the
Stemmons Freeway sign
create the 'flop'.
In addition, if you look at the later
frames Z225-6, you can see the same shadow (blocked to some extent by
the fact that his arms are up) on JFK!
**********
Whether or not there is something which might be "carrying the same
perimeter shape as the top right corner of the sign," it cannot actually
BE a shadow of the top right corner of the sign falling on him there.
The shadow would first have to REACH that small side window in order for
it to be refracted onto Connally, but it is plain as day that the sun is
in entirely the wrong position, & that instead all the shadows it is
casting in the film are pointing northeast, which puts any shadow from
the sign pointing at an angle away from the street. But the limo was
SOUTHeast of the sign at that time. Additionally, if that's a shadow of
the sign on Connally, it ought to be passing across him from right to
left in our orientation as we look at the film, since the limo is in
constant motion toward our right. I don't see it do any such thing. As
for it then falling on Kennedy as you claim above, I've just watched the
film over & over & over & I see nothing even remotely like that, & how,
may I ask, would this same side window "refract" such a shadow all the
way back to him too?
> > In addition,
> >> he is pulling insignificant information out of context to attempt to
> >> put his spin on the criticism..
> >
> >Bull. I quoted you DIRECTLY. It came right from the pig paper in question.
> >You wrote it. You now don't want to discuss the shadow, but prefer other
> >discussion- initiated by you.
>
> You confused the difference in height measurement between the difference
> in clearance measurement.
WHOA!!! Avoid, avoid, avoid. He specifically referenced the shadow,
yet you again turn the topic to something completely different. What on
EARTH does the height or clearance measurement have to do with a shadow
that quite obviously cannot be coming from the freeway sign?
> You have been and are now rambling all alone by
> yourself, aren't you?
Oh dear no. Multiple posters have come forward to soundly dispute your
claims about that shadow, & not all of them are LNTs either. And you
certainly cannot attribute an "agenda" to my own disputations of your
claims about that shadow that would be anything like an "agenda" to
support the/an SBT at all costs, since as you learned quite a few months
ago, I do not support an SBT *either*.
> I don't see you referencing anything that I said.
*BOGGLE!!!* YOU DON'T SEE HIM SAYING THESE EXACT WORDS???
"You now don't want to discuss the shadow..."
You don't see the word SHADOW there???
You have INDEED discussed a SHADOW, so he was INDEED referencing
something you MOST DEFINITELY *DID* SAY.
> >> Thus, the LNTs have yet to even prove an SB scenario.
> >
> >Red leader, stay on target. I was talking about the shadow, not everything
> >except
> >the shadow.
>
> I was replying to your misrepresentations of the difference in
> measurements between the WC and HSCA..
But you're refusing & refusing & refusing to reply to anything ANY of us
say about the SHADOW. He was AGAIN talking about the SHADOW in that
sentence, & you once again answer a sentence which is specifically about
the SHADOW with a sentence which ISN'T about the shadow at all, but
about something completely & totally different.
> You do recall rambling on about
> that, don't you?
Perhaps he did.
In some other thread.
In THIS thread we're discussing the SHADOW.
Well, that is, everyone but you is discussing the shadow.
For some inexplicable reason that's the one thing you WON'T discuss.
Even though the thread itself was indeed started on the precise topic of
the shadow, & every other poster but you has been bringing up the shadow
repeatedly.
> >What are they
> >> doing assuming it has been proven and demanding that those who
> >> disagree with it put up their proof?
> >
> >I don't know. That's not was I was addressing, was it? Did you, perhaps,
> >read
> >someone else's post and, perhaps, attribute it to me?
>
> You were complaining about the fact that I have pointed out serious
> discrepancies between the measurements used by the WC and the HSCA to
> attempt to prove their SB scenarios.
Where on earth in THIS thread was he "complaining" about any such thing?
I've only seen him disputing your claim about the SHADOW in this thread.
Why are you constantly trying to turn the discussion onto anything BUT
the shadow?
> >I was talking about the shadow.
Yep, there he said it again. About the SHADOW. His exact words.
> You were misrepresenting measurements. I thought you had acknowledged the
> 'lapel flop' was nothing more than a shadow. Posner jumped to an
> incorrect conclusion.
Ah, finally, at last, you actually used the word "shadow" in a sentence.
Unfortunately you're still failing to address in the slightest what
several of us have said specifically about the shadow of the SIGN.
> >Write it down. Perhaps you and Tony can get
> >together and read my posts fully and take notes on what I actually said
> >versus
> >what you think I was thinking but didn't write.
>
> Huh? It isn't easy to follow the meandering.
He isn't meandering in the slightest. He's been consistently talking
about the SHADOW in this thread. You, however, are meandering all over
the place, onto practically every topic BUT the shadow.
> >> S-O-D (slime, obfuscate, divert). A legal tactic.
> >
> >The only diversion here is from you, Pamela. Not ONCE did you address
> >ANYTHING
> >related to my post. Heck, you never even once mentioned the shadow- THE
> >PRIMARY
> >SUBJECT OF MY POST.
>
> You were comfortable complaining about my essay without even having read
> it, weren't you? And now you are complaining that I am not reading your
> mind?
It doesn't take a mind-reader to quite easily tell that we're all
challenging you specifically about your claim of a shadow from the sign
falling on Connally.
> Why not just spit it out Chad? Just what are you so lathered about?
That you keep avoiding, & avoiding, & avoiding addressing directly
anything anyone has said about the particular shadow you claim to be
there, of course.
> >Would that be a tactic of any significant derivation? Or, is it simply a
> >tactic to scream 'tactic', then
> >employ the same tactic you are screaming about?
>
> Here's the gif showing the 'lapel flop'.
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
Yep, & it plainly shows the shadow of a bystander on the other side of
the street pointing northeast. The sun is a single light source, & so
cannot cast shadows in different directions at the same time. All
shadows cast by it will extend in a single direction. Thus if the
shadow of a bystander is pointing northeast, the shadow of the sign will
also point northeast.
That's at an angle AWAY from the street, since the sign is on the NORTH
side of the street.
> My position is that Posner owes us all an apology for jumping to a
> sinister conclusion.
Perhaps he does. Perhaps you also owe us all an apology for making a
claim which flies directly in the face of all that is known about the
tilt of the earth's axis.
Barb Junkkarinen
<NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
Smart man. :-) I've just read the diatribes on acjfk ..... very smart
man!
Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Barb :-)
>>
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
>me to defend it.
>
>Pamela
Pamela is comfortable introducing a theory and then doing the dip,
dive, divert and personal rambles rather than address a response that
points out that her thesis flys in the face of science.
She who always wants one thing or another to be acknowledged should be
able to acknowledge simple facts that are posted in response to her
and keep the discussion on the issue, shouldn't she?
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
Amen.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
That's cuz it's not a'tiltin the way she wants, me thinks. And it's
all because of horrid people and LNT's and archrivals and slanted
fields .... you know, the ususal ... at last that's how it seems to be
coming to the top on acjfk. :-)
The FACT that her thesis flys in the face of science can't hold a
candle to all that!
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Pamela's Cute Pig
>>From: Caeruleo caer...@yahoo.com
>>Date: 12/9/2004 8:14 AM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <caeruleo-CFE2BD...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
>>
>TOP POST FOR PAMELA:
>
> First, you say that the lapel buldge is caused by the window frame of the
>limo.
>You were shown to be wrong.
> Then, you say the lapel buldge was caused by a shadow from the Stemmons
>Freeway sign.
>
> All one would have to do is look at Kellerman as he comes out from behind the
>sign, and notice no such shadow appears on him. Then take a look at JFK as he
>is in the same position JBC was in only a fraction of a second before him.
>No...no shadow on JFK either.
>Then, all one has to do is look at the shadows cast by the people lining Elm
>Street, the tree in the background, and the limo itself on the street and see
>that Pamela has no idea what she is talking about.
OUCH! Indeed, even if one doesn't know the science, a little
observation and a bit of common sense ... and wahlah. Good points,
Steve.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 9 Dec 2004 08:55:58 -0500, "Paul Seaton"
>The Ed Forum is not an arch LNT stronghold, as aaj is.
This isn't an LN vs CT thing, Pamela. Why is it that every time
someone disagrees with you it's because of some slanted field, some
pool of nasty LNs, some pack of wolves in sheep's clothing, some plot,
refusal to acknowledge, etc. Maybe it's just because sometimes what is
posited doesn't hold up to scrutiny. And in this particular case, your
thesis flys in the face of science (not to mention simple observation
and common sense as Steve pointed out).
This isn't an LN vs CT thing, Pamela, it's a Pamela vs science thing.
Science wins.
Why can't *you* acknowledge *that*?
Barb :-)
>
>Pamela
Barb Junkkarinen
Touche'! Not when it comes to the sun, light and shadows anyway!
Barb :-)
>
>Doug
Paul Seaton
> Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
> me to defend it.
>
Ahh ! .. if only you were half as good at geometry as you are at evasion....
--
Paul Seaton
Paul Seaton
> >In article <aa6fr0pruu4bad43t...@4ax.com>,
> > Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in
> >> the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the
> >> orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and
> >> also JFK and JBC.
> >
Thus Pamela assures me that a 'small side window' can alter the position of
the sun somehow.
Placing implicit faith in Pamela, by golly I'm going out to buy me a 'small
side window'. ( BTW Pamela : Does it have to be a Ford small side window ??)
.. and I'm going to use my 'small side window' to move the sun a LOT higher
in the sky, here.
Thus armed with our small side windows, is there anything we cannot achieve
?? .....
--
Paul Seaton
Pamela McElwain-Brown
<NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:bb6hr0l23fn7ig12r...@4ax.com...
>> Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
>> me to defend it.
>>
>
>
>Ahh ! .. if only you were half as good at geometry as you are at evasion....
http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
You are pushing the strawman and demanding that I defend it. In
addition, you could better be spending your time focusing on Posner,
who carelessly jumped to a sinister conclusion on the lapel 'flop'
rather than trying to kill the messenger.
Pamela
Pamela McElwain-Brown
>In article <bb6hr0l23fn7ig12r...@4ax.com>,
> Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
>> me to defend it.
>
>No, what he's actually doing is rightfully pointing out to you that the
>tilt of the earth's axis absolutely precludes even the remotest
>possibility of the shadow of that sign extending toward the street at
>all at that latitude at that time of day at that time of year.
Unfortunately, you are refusing to acknowledge that Paul is responding
to Chad's strawman.
http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
Here is the orientation of the equation I am presenting as a valid
alternative to Posner's lapel 'flip'. Why not acknowledge the fact
that the small side window is part of the equation?
>
>Why do you keep refusing, & refusing, & refusing to address such a
>simple & obvious thing, which was taught to all of us way back in grade
>school for heaven's sake, as the position of the sun in the sky at that
>latitude in the northern hemisphere at that time of year?
The simple equation you are attempting to push is Chad's strawman.
In addition, why not focus on the hocus-pocus Posner played on the LNT
community by refusing to even look at benign alternatives? He jumped
to a sinister conclusion. I'm just the messenger.
Pamela :-)
Pamela McElwain-Brown
what the definition of a strawman is. Cute!
Pamela
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible,
Pamela McElwain-Brown
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 9 Dec 2004 14:17:58 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
><pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
>>me to defend it.
>>
>>Pamela
>
>Pamela is comfortable introducing a theory and then doing the dip,
>dive, divert and personal rambles rather than address a response that
>points out that her thesis flys in the face of science.
Barb refuses to acknowledge that demands are being made that I defend
a strawman. Wait -- Barb has also forgotten what a strawman is!
In addition, Barb has forgotten the larger issue -- that Posner jumped
to an illogical and sinister conclusion without bothering to examine
reasonable alternatives.
http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
Posner apparently didn't bother to take his high-tech to the
full-frame Zapruder film.
>
>She who always wants one thing or another to be acknowledged should be
>able to acknowledge simple facts that are posted in response to her
>and keep the discussion on the issue, shouldn't she?
I am acknowledging the strawman argument.
Pamela :-)
[...]
Pamela McElwain-Brown
<NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >In article <aa6fr0pruu4bad43t...@4ax.com>,
>> > Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in
>> >> the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the
>> >> orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and
>> >> also JFK and JBC.
>> >
>
>
>Thus Pamela assures me that a 'small side window' can alter the position of
>the sun somehow.
Oh great physicist! Just brilliant Paul. The side window affects the
the manner in whichlight of the sun and shadow of the sign between
Zapruder and the limo causes a shadow within the limo. You prefer to
consider JBC without his orientation -- he was surrounded by glass,
actually, on both sides, plus the windshield. All these things were
affecting the way light and shadow played within the limo during the
motorcade.
>Placing implicit faith in Pamela, by golly I'm going out to buy me a 'small
>side window'. ( BTW Pamela : Does it have to be a Ford small side window ??)
>.. and I'm going to use my 'small side window' to move the sun a LOT higher
>in the sky, here.
>
>Thus armed with our small side windows, is there anything we cannot achieve
>?? .....
Why not spew your righteous venom at Posner for jumping to a sinister
conclusion rather than examining reasonable alternatives? I'm just
the messenger Paul.
Pamela
Pamela McElwain-Brown
And that would be based on your own experience there? :-0
Pamela McElwain-Brown
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 9 Dec 2004 14:16:40 -0500, drumr...@wmconnect.com (Drumrolls3)
>wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Pamela's Cute Pig
>>>From: Caeruleo caer...@yahoo.com
>>>Date: 12/9/2004 8:14 AM Eastern Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <caeruleo-CFE2BD...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
>>>
>>TOP POST FOR PAMELA:
>>
>> First, you say that the lapel buldge is caused by the window frame of the
>>limo.
>>You were shown to be wrong.
>> Then, you say the lapel buldge was caused by a shadow from the Stemmons
>>Freeway sign.
>>
>> All one would have to do is look at Kellerman as he comes out from behind the
>>sign, and notice no such shadow appears on him. Then take a look at JFK as he
>>is in the same position JBC was in only a fraction of a second before him.
>>No...no shadow on JFK either.
>>Then, all one has to do is look at the shadows cast by the people lining Elm
>>Street, the tree in the background, and the limo itself on the street and see
>>that Pamela has no idea what she is talking about.
>
>OUCH! Indeed, even if one doesn't know the science, a little
>observation and a bit of common sense ... and wahlah. Good points,
>Steve.
If you're so savvy Barb, why haven't you shared with us your
interpretation of how the side window(s) and windshield of the limo
work to create shadows and even artifacts within the limo?
In addition, as a proclaimed CT, why not assist in the destruction of
the Posner lapel 'flop' rather than attempting to curry favor with the
LNT's? :-0
Pamela
[...]
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible,
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Pamela's Cute Pig
>>From: Caeruleo caer...@yahoo.com
>>Date: 12/9/2004 8:14 AM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <caeruleo-CFE2BD...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
>>
>TOP POST FOR PAMELA:
>
> First, you say that the lapel buldge is caused by the window frame of the
>limo.
Stop misrepresenting me. Here is the gif
http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>You were shown to be wrong.
Oh really? None of the super-physicists have even bothered to address
the involvement of the side window in the equation I presented. In
addition, there was another side window plus the windshield, or
haven't you noticed? All of these throw shadows within the limo
througout the motorcade.
> Then, you say the lapel buldge was caused by a shadow from the Stemmons
>Freeway sign.
You have not bothered to acknowledge the equation I presented. You
are trying to get me to defend your strawman.
>
> All one would have to do is look at Kellerman as he comes out from behind the
>sign, and notice no such shadow appears on him.
Kellerman is in front of the side window Einstein.
Then take a look at JFK as he
>is in the same position JBC was in only a fraction of a second before him.
>No...no shadow on JFK either.
Oh yes there is, on Z225 and Z226. It is partially blocked by JFK's
lifted arm, but still visible. And even so, JFK was in different
orientation to the side window than JBC.
>Then, all one has to do is look at the shadows cast by the people lining Elm
>Street, the tree in the background, and the limo itself on the street and see
>that Pamela has no idea what she is talking about.
No Steve, we know that you are pushing Chad's strawman.
Why not get angry at Posner for creating this morass in the first
place? I'm just the messenger.
Pamela
>
>Steve
Chad Zimmerman
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:10:22 GMT, Barb Junkkarinen
> <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On 9 Dec 2004 14:17:58 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
> ><pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
> >>me to defend it.
> >>
> >>Pamela
> >
> >Pamela is comfortable introducing a theory and then doing the dip,
> >dive, divert and personal rambles rather than address a response that
> >points out that her thesis flys in the face of science.
>
> Barb refuses to acknowledge that demands are being made that I defend
> a strawman. Wait -- Barb has also forgotten what a strawman is!
>
> In addition, Barb has forgotten the larger issue -- that Posner jumped
> to an illogical and sinister conclusion without bothering to examine
> reasonable alternatives.
Its not reasonable. Its horrid and violates known laws of physics.
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
> Posner apparently didn't bother to take his high-tech to the
> full-frame Zapruder film.
Yeah, what a dumb ass. He should've avoided all scientific laws in favor of
your
position.
> >
> >She who always wants one thing or another to be acknowledged should be
> >able to acknowledge simple facts that are posted in response to her
> >and keep the discussion on the issue, shouldn't she?
>
> I am acknowledging the strawman argument.
You should. You invented it.
Chad
>
> Pamela :-)
> [...]
>
> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
impossible,
> whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in
Scarlet,
> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
>
> "Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary
devoted to SS-100-X.
> It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here
is a link to the
> schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson,
Vaughn's widow and I are
> interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR
CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002)
> was used as the basis for the assassination section.
> For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine
SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com.
> Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join
jfk100x at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk100x/ (Yahoo Groups).
> For information about my life away from research, visit
www.themagicflute.org
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.806 / Virus Database: 548 - Release Date: 12/5/2004
Chad Zimmerman
> Barb is attempting to push the strawman, while forgetting
> what the definition of a strawman is. Cute!
Pamela, you are being non-sensical. There are verifiable persistent problems
with your theory. The Stemmons shadow CANNOT be where you are saying
it is. That is a terrible problem for your analysis. You are evading that
terrible
conclusion for self preservation.
I'm truly sorry that you are staking your credibility on this claim.
Everyone else knows that the shadow cannot be there.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> On 10 Dec 2004 10:31:58 -0500, "Paul Seaton"
> <NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:bb6hr0l23fn7ig12r...@4ax.com...
> >> Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
> >> me to defend it.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Ahh ! .. if only you were half as good at geometry as you are at
evasion....
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
> You are pushing the strawman and demanding that I defend it. In
> addition, you could better be spending your time focusing on Posner,
> who carelessly jumped to a sinister conclusion on the lapel 'flop'
> rather than trying to kill the messenger.
You are the creator of the biggest 'flop' possibly ever postulated on this
newsgroup.
It violates the laws of physics. You are blind to the photographic evidence
that discounts
your analysis.
All you can do is try and create misdirection.
You cannot defend your argument, so you resort to inventing other arguments.
How can you put the Stemmons Freeway sign INTO the limousine when it is on
the ground?
Answer that question please without show a Zfilm frame. If you've done your
homework, then
there is a scientific explanation for it. That is what you are dancing
around.
Chad
>
> Pamela
>
> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
impossible,
> whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in
Scarlet,
> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
>
> "Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary
devoted to SS-100-X.
> It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here
is a link to the
> schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson,
Vaughn's widow and I are
> interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR
CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002)
> was used as the basis for the assassination section.
> For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine
SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com.
> Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join
jfk100x at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk100x/ (Yahoo Groups).
> For information about my life away from research, visit
www.themagicflute.org
>
Chad Zimmerman
> On 9 Dec 2004 21:14:10 -0500, Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <bb6hr0l23fn7ig12r...@4ax.com>,
> > Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
> >> me to defend it.
> >
> >No, what he's actually doing is rightfully pointing out to you that the
> >tilt of the earth's axis absolutely precludes even the remotest
> >possibility of the shadow of that sign extending toward the street at
> >all at that latitude at that time of day at that time of year.
>
> Unfortunately, you are refusing to acknowledge that Paul is responding
> to Chad's strawman.
Translation: Huh? Earth? Tilt? Sun? (Resort to nonsensical arguments that
have been
disproven redundantly over and over and.....)
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
> Here is the orientation of the equation I am presenting as a valid
> alternative to Posner's lapel 'flip'. Why not acknowledge the fact
> that the small side window is part of the equation?
Sure. Its part of your disproven equation. Now, move on.
> >
> >Why do you keep refusing, & refusing, & refusing to address such a
> >simple & obvious thing, which was taught to all of us way back in grade
> >school for heaven's sake, as the position of the sun in the sky at that
> >latitude in the northern hemisphere at that time of year?
>
> The simple equation you are attempting to push is Chad's strawman.
Translation: Huh? Earth? Tilt? Sun? (Resort to nonsensical arguments that
have been
disproven redundantly over and over and.....)
(Yes, your mind is probably spinning right now.)
Damn scienterrific schtuff.
>
> In addition, why not focus on the hocus-pocus Posner played on the LNT
> community by refusing to even look at benign alternatives?
Translation: Why not allow me to misdirect your attention to something I
think
I know a lot about.
>He jumped
> to a sinister conclusion. I'm just the messenger.
No, you created this chaos. Chaos is how things started. Order is what
resulted.
You are going the wrong direction if you want to be a messenger of reality
and all
things scientific.
Chad
>
> Pamela :-)
>
> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
impossible,
> whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in
Scarlet,
> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
>
> "Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary
devoted to SS-100-X.
> It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here
is a link to the
> schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson,
Vaughn's widow and I are
> interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR
CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002)
> was used as the basis for the assassination section.
> For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine
SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com.
> Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join
jfk100x at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk100x/ (Yahoo Groups).
> For information about my life away from research, visit
www.themagicflute.org
>
Chad Zimmerman
> On 10 Dec 2004 10:37:10 -0500, "Paul Seaton"
> <NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> >In article <aa6fr0pruu4bad43t...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors
in
> >> >> the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the
> >> >> orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo
and
> >> >> also JFK and JBC.
> >> >
> >
> >
> >Thus Pamela assures me that a 'small side window' can alter the position
of
> >the sun somehow.
>
> Oh great physicist! Just brilliant Paul. The side window affects the
> the manner in whichlight of the sun and shadow of the sign between
> Zapruder and the limo causes a shadow within the limo.
Yeah? Really? How?
The shadow is on the ground- nowhere near the window.
Will you admit that?
You prefer to
> consider JBC without his orientation
Nobody is moving JBC or questioning his *orientation*.
-- he was surrounded by glass,
> actually, on both sides, plus the windshield. All these things were
> affecting the way light and shadow played within the limo during the
> motorcade.
Translation: I KNOW what I am saying, but I can't quite get it out so that
it makes
any sense to anyone.
>
> >Placing implicit faith in Pamela, by golly I'm going out to buy me a
'small
> >side window'. ( BTW Pamela : Does it have to be a Ford small side window
??)
> >.. and I'm going to use my 'small side window' to move the sun a LOT
higher
> >in the sky, here.
> >
> >Thus armed with our small side windows, is there anything we cannot
achieve
> >?? .....
>
> Why not spew your righteous venom at Posner for jumping to a sinister
> conclusion rather than examining reasonable alternatives?
Ooooooooh! When in doubt, resort to pushing the whole thing off on Posner.
I'm just
> the messenger Paul.
No. You are the creator.
Chad
>
> Pamela
>
> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
impossible,
> whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in
Scarlet,
> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
>
> "Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary
devoted to SS-100-X.
> It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here
is a link to the
> schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson,
Vaughn's widow and I are
> interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR
CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002)
> was used as the basis for the assassination section.
> For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine
SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com.
> Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join
jfk100x at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk100x/ (Yahoo Groups).
> For information about my life away from research, visit
www.themagicflute.org
>
Chad Zimmerman
> On 9 Dec 2004 21:17:20 -0500, dgo...@aol.com (Doug Gosha) wrote:
>
> >>The Ed Forum is not an arch LNT stronghold, as aaj is.
> >>
> >>Pamela
> >>
> >
> >Obviously, not an arch knowledge stronghold either.
> >
> >Doug
>
> And that would be based on your own experience there? :-0
Um, what he's getting at, and you're having a hard time grasping, is that
this issue
is so plainly obvious that anyone agreeing with you on that point doesn't
know jack
about basic scientific principles.
One doesn't have to post there to know that- it IS that obvious.
Chad
>
> Pamela
>
> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
impossible,
> whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in
Scarlet,
> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
>
> "Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary
devoted to SS-100-X.
> It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here
is a link to the
> schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson,
Vaughn's widow and I are
> interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR
CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002)
> was used as the basis for the assassination section.
> For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine
SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com.
> Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join
jfk100x at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk100x/ (Yahoo Groups).
> For information about my life away from research, visit
www.themagicflute.org
>
Chad Zimmerman
Translation: H E L P M E !!!!!
>
> In addition, as a proclaimed CT, why not assist in the destruction of
> the Posner lapel 'flop' rather than attempting to curry favor with the
> LNT's? :-0
Translation: I'm a CT, you're a CT- won't you please H E L P, ole buddy ole
pal?
Secondary Translation: Posner is a LN, we are CT's, WE MUST DESTROY
EVERYTHING HE SAYS BECAUSE HE HAS TO BE WRONG ABOUT
EVERYTHING...AND PLEASE HELP ME!!!
Chad
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Barb is attempting to push the strawman, while forgetting
>what the definition of a strawman is. Cute!
Pamela won't address the problem raised regarding her thesis: it flys
in the face of scientifi principles of the sun, light, shadows, etc.
So she does this usual personal commentary thing.
Why not discuss the issue YOU introduced, pamela .... tell us how what
you presented fits with known science?
Adress what has been pointed out to you in direct response to your
thesis.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 9 Dec 2004 21:14:10 -0500, Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <bb6hr0l23fn7ig12r...@4ax.com>,
>> Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
>>> me to defend it.
>>
>>No, what he's actually doing is rightfully pointing out to you that the
>>tilt of the earth's axis absolutely precludes even the remotest
>>possibility of the shadow of that sign extending toward the street at
>>all at that latitude at that time of day at that time of year.
>
>Unfortunately, you are refusing to acknowledge that Paul is responding
>to Chad's strawman.
>
>http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
>Here is the orientation of the equation I am presenting as a valid
>alternative to Posner's lapel 'flip'. Why not acknowledge the fact
>that the small side window is part of the equation?
>>
>>Why do you keep refusing, & refusing, & refusing to address such a
>>simple & obvious thing, which was taught to all of us way back in grade
>>school for heaven's sake, as the position of the sun in the sky at that
>>latitude in the northern hemisphere at that time of year?
>
>The simple equation you are attempting to push is Chad's strawman.
>
>In addition, why not focus on the hocus-pocus Posner played on the LNT
>community by refusing to even look at benign alternatives? He jumped
>to a sinister conclusion. I'm just the messenger.
You're a meessenger trying to now hide behind Posner and make him the
issue. You presented your thesis .... you are ignoring science that
has been pointed out to you that means your thesis is impossible. What
you left out of your equation is known science ... not to mention some
simple observation of the shadows in DP that day. The small side
window is irrelevant .... it's that science thing, Pamela.
Why not just admit you were wrong? Is that impossible for you?
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:bb6hr0l23fn7ig12r...@4ax.com...
>> Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
>> me to defend it.
>>
>
>
>Ahh ! .. if only you were half as good at geometry as you are at evasion....
Seems it's become a bit of an art form ....
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:10:22 GMT, Barb Junkkarinen
><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On 9 Dec 2004 14:17:58 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>><pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
>>>me to defend it.
>>>
>>>Pamela
>>
>>Pamela is comfortable introducing a theory and then doing the dip,
>>dive, divert and personal rambles rather than address a response that
>>points out that her thesis flys in the face of science.
>
>Barb refuses to acknowledge that demands are being made that I defend
>a strawman. Wait -- Barb has also forgotten what a strawman is!
No, Pamela...you're being asked to acknowledge that science says your
thesis is crapola. I know precisely what a strawman is .... I also
recognize Charles Durning impressions of "Dance a Little Sidestep."
>
>In addition, Barb has forgotten the larger issue -- that Posner jumped
>to an illogical and sinister conclusion without bothering to examine
>reasonable alternatives.
...oh, and I recognize dip, dive, dodge and diverts too. :-)
>
>http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
>Posner apparently didn't bother to take his high-tech to the
>full-frame Zapruder film.
Posner isn't the issue here. Your thesis is. You trotted it out, it
came up lame ... now you're trying to ignore it and pretend it's not
in the room. Kind of like you've done with your Sevret Service claims
and claims that Drain rode a secret jet fighter TO D.C.
>>
>>She who always wants one thing or another to be acknowledged should be
>>able to acknowledge simple facts that are posted in response to her
>>and keep the discussion on the issue, shouldn't she?
>
>I am acknowledging the strawman argument.
The only straw being strewn is by you.
Which part of Chad's (and several other's responses now too) direct
response to your thesis, pointing out why it is flawed and how,
pointing out the laws of science it is in direct conflict with do you
not understand ... and why are you unable to acknowledge it?
The ostrich position resolves nothing.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 10 Dec 2004 10:31:58 -0500, "Paul Seaton"
><NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:bb6hr0l23fn7ig12r...@4ax.com...
>>> Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
>>> me to defend it.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Ahh ! .. if only you were half as good at geometry as you are at evasion....
>
>http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
>You are pushing the strawman and demanding that I defend it. In
>addition, you could better be spending your time focusing on Posner,
>who carelessly jumped to a sinister conclusion on the lapel 'flop'
>rather than trying to kill the messenger.
That's the ticket .... try the segue to Posner .... not a smooth
delivery attempt, Pamela ..... your feet are too caught up in the muck
of your own making to be able to make this getaway.
Now, bringing Posner in rather than address the direct responses to
the issue/thesis you introduced here, now THAT, dear heart, is straw.
ACHOOOO!
It's no crime to not have known why it couldn't possibly be a shadow
... it's not the thesis that is so ridiculous here, it's your
reaction, refusal to even address what many people have told you, and
instead attack the messengers and then go for the big divert.
This is scholarship in research?
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 10 Dec 2004 10:37:10 -0500, "Paul Seaton"
><NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> >In article <aa6fr0pruu4bad43t...@4ax.com>,
>>> > Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> >> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in
>>> >> the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the
>>> >> orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and
>>> >> also JFK and JBC.
>>> >
>>
>>
>>Thus Pamela assures me that a 'small side window' can alter the position of
>>the sun somehow.
>
>Oh great physicist! Just brilliant Paul. The side window affects the
>the manner in whichlight of the sun and shadow of the sign between
>Zapruder and the limo causes a shadow within the limo.
Yikes. Can you explain that to us less scientific sorts?
> You prefer to
>consider JBC without his orientation -- he was surrounded by glass,
>actually, on both sides, plus the windshield. All these things were
>affecting the way light and shadow played within the limo during the
>motorcade.
Great, then you should be able to explain it all to us.
>
>>Placing implicit faith in Pamela, by golly I'm going out to buy me a 'small
>>side window'. ( BTW Pamela : Does it have to be a Ford small side window ??)
>>.. and I'm going to use my 'small side window' to move the sun a LOT higher
>>in the sky, here.
>>
>>Thus armed with our small side windows, is there anything we cannot achieve
>>?? .....
>
>Why not spew your righteous venom at Posner for jumping to a sinister
>conclusion rather than examining reasonable alternatives? I'm just
>the messenger Paul.
Deja vu'. Her new mantra. It's not her or her theory ... it's Posner's
fault! I LOVED Charles Durning doing the "Dance a Little Sidestep" in
"The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas"!
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Now THIS is straw!!! Gotta love it!!! I have no "interpretaions" to
share on that, Pamela ... and have never said I do, nor have I ever
said that the windshield and side window "work to create shadows and
even artifacts within the limo" ... that is decidedly your baby and
the one that's landed you amid all this because you can't bring
yourself to admit you are wrong.
How bizarre given all your carryings on at everyone about straw men!
Next she'll ask me to defend against beating my dog.
>
>In addition, as a proclaimed CT, why not assist in the destruction of
>the Posner lapel 'flop' rather than attempting to curry favor with the
>LNT's? :-0
I am a staunch CT. I happen to think the lapel did flip/flap. My takes
on Posner are well known and well documented. But he, though you are
know in overdrive trying to make it so, is not the issue here.
The issue is your theory.
You brought it to the group.
It flys in the face of science.
It's been explained to you by several people.
You attack the people.
You ignore the science.
You try to divert to Posner.
Wouldn't be easier to just thank Chad and others for pointing out the
folly of your thesis to you, acknowledge that they helped you gain
some important knowledge ... and move on?
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
You are saying that JFK's upraised arm "partially blocked" ... a
shadow??????????
> And even so, JFK was in different
>orientation to the side window than JBC.
>
>>Then, all one has to do is look at the shadows cast by the people lining Elm
>>Street, the tree in the background, and the limo itself on the street and see
>>that Pamela has no idea what she is talking about.
>
>No Steve, we know that you are pushing Chad's strawman.
>
>Why not get angry at Posner for creating this morass in the first
>place? I'm just the messenger.
It's your morass. Whatever Posner theorizes about the lapel flip,
whether right or more of the garbage his book is full of, imo, does
not have anything to do with whether or not there WAS a lapel flip.
You say the lapel did not flip, that what we see is a shadow. The
theory flys in the face of science. If you don't think so, then it is
for YOU to explain the principles/process by which the Stemmons sign
could be casting a shadow on JBC.
All your gnashing of teeth and convolutions dunt change that.
Barb :-)
Pamela McElwain-Brown
limo...yeah, right...<sigh>
http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
Apparently, sniping is easier than research for some. :-0
Pamela
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:28:38 GMT, Barb Junkkarinen
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 9 Dec 2004 21:17:20 -0500, dgo...@aol.com (Doug Gosha) wrote:
>
>>>The Ed Forum is not an arch LNT stronghold, as aaj is.
>>>
>>>Pamela
>>>
>>
>>Obviously, not an arch knowledge stronghold either.
>
>Touche'! Not when it comes to the sun, light and shadows anyway!
>
>Barb :-)
>>
>>Doug
Chad Zimmerman
> On 9 Dec 2004 14:16:40 -0500, drumr...@wmconnect.com (Drumrolls3)
> wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Pamela's Cute Pig
> >>From: Caeruleo caer...@yahoo.com
> >>Date: 12/9/2004 8:14 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <caeruleo-CFE2BD...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
> >>
> >TOP POST FOR PAMELA:
> >
> > First, you say that the lapel buldge is caused by the window frame of the
> >limo.
>
> Stop misrepresenting me. Here is the gif
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
>
> >You were shown to be wrong.
>
> Oh really? None of the super-physicists have even bothered to address
> the involvement of the side window in the equation I presented.
Because it isn't anywhere near the shadow either, Pamela. Go to a local
middle school and talk to a first year science teacher.....please!
In
> addition, there was another side window plus the windshield, or
> haven't you noticed?
Are you slowly trying to insert OTHER possible shadow makers? Good for
you!
Now, when are you going to publicly drop the Stemmons Freeway sign
garbage?
All of these throw shadows within the limo
> througout the motorcade.
No kidding. Nobody said that they did. Now, just what definition does that
fit?
>
> > Then, you say the lapel buldge was caused by a shadow from the Stemmons
> >Freeway sign.
>
> You have not bothered to acknowledge the equation I presented. You
> are trying to get me to defend your strawman.
BRAAAHHHH!
Squeaky parrot!
Your equation is wrong. Your strawman doesn't exist.
You are perpetuating a fallacy and are trying to demand that everyone
acknowledges the existence as truth.
>
> >
> > All one would have to do is look at Kellerman as he comes out from behind the
> >sign, and notice no such shadow appears on him.
>
> Kellerman is in front of the side window Einstein.
So, is it a shadow from the side window? If not, just how does a side
window take a shadow from somewhere else and throw it on someone inside
the care...Einstein?
Just because you can see a shadow THROUGH the window (as Connally
invariably could), doesn't mean that the shadow jumped onto him through
it.
It's poor science.
>
> Then take a look at JFK as he
> >is in the same position JBC was in only a fraction of a second before him.
> >No...no shadow on JFK either.
>
> Oh yes there is, on Z225 and Z226. It is partially blocked by JFK's
> lifted arm, but still visible. And even so, JFK was in different
> orientation to the side window than JBC.
Neither JFK or JBC were in a position to have the Stemmons Freeway sign
shadow hit them. Zero percent chance.
>
> >Then, all one has to do is look at the shadows cast by the people lining Elm
> >Street, the tree in the background, and the limo itself on the street and see
> >that Pamela has no idea what she is talking about.
>
> No Steve, we know that you are pushing Chad's strawman.
Jesus. Please, please send her the answer in her dreams.
>
> Why not get angry at Posner for creating this morass in the first
> place? I'm just the messenger.
Its not Posner's problem. He's not involved in this. You created the
message.
Live with it, except it, acknowledge that you are wrong...then move on.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
That was.....simply.......RIGHT ON THE (expletive) HEAD!
I can't believe she asked you to support her just because you are a CT and
that Posner created the lapel stuff.
It reminds me of the letter that Mack sent Steve regarding the Double
Decker issue.
Nothing like CT or LN patriotism for garbage.
"Hey, hold on to me while I jump off this bridge into the frozen river!"
Give me a break.
Chad
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:50dkr05rqdnpt73ue...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>TOP POST
>
>That was.....simply.......RIGHT ON THE (expletive) HEAD!
>
>I can't believe she asked you to support her just because you are a CT and
>that Posner created the lapel stuff.
Little surprises me anymore ... sigh. I can't believe yet **another**
Pamela thread has turned into a morass ... wait a minute, what am I
saying......
>
>It reminds me of the letter that Mack sent Steve regarding the Double
>Decker issue.
>
>Nothing like CT or LN patriotism for garbage.
>
>"Hey, hold on to me while I jump off this bridge into the frozen river!"
>
>Give me a break.
Amen.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Here's the gif; check the orientation; look at the shadows inside the
>limo...yeah, right...<sigh>
>
>http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
I've looked at it before, Pamela. On my monitor at least, it's worse
than useless .... overall dark and grainy and certainly no shadow of
any sort would show up even if it's there on the pool of darkness that
is JBC's coat and surrounds.
>
>Apparently, sniping is easier than research for some. :-0
Is that why you incessantly snipe at and about people, about their
assassination beliefs, etc rather than respond on topic to what others
offer in response to you?
I'm trying to think of a discussion you've been involved in that
didn't immediately descend into exactly this same condition and in the
same fashion.
I can't.
Maybe you are right .... it must be everybody else.
Or just maybe .... ya think ... you are not right.
Barb :-)
Drumrolls3
>Date: 12/11/2004 12:05 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <41ba...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
But...but...but...you said the Stemmons sign created the shadow... EINSTEIN!
Now we are back to the window frame...MAKE UP YOUR MIND PAM!
Doug Gosha
>On 9 Dec 2004 21:17:20 -0500, dgo...@aol.com (Doug Gosha) wrote:
>
>>>The Ed Forum is not an arch LNT stronghold, as aaj is.
>>>
>>>Pamela
>>>
>>
>>Obviously, not an arch knowledge stronghold either.
>
>Touche'! Not when it comes to the sun, light and shadows anyway!
>
>Barb :-)
>>
>>Doug
>
Yah, maybe I should have been a little nore specific. But, I suspect there are
other areas that are sorely lacking too. They probably believe the cardboard
people theory of Jack what-his-names's too.
Doug
Doug Gosha
>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:cmtjr0pnpltlu7t6d...@4ax.com...
>> On 9 Dec 2004 21:17:20 -0500, dgo...@aol.com (Doug Gosha) wrote:
>>
>> >>The Ed Forum is not an arch LNT stronghold, as aaj is.
>> >>
>> >>Pamela
>> >>
>> >
>> >Obviously, not an arch knowledge stronghold either.
>> >
>> >Doug
>>
>> And that would be based on your own experience there? :-0
>
>Um, what he's getting at, and you're having a hard time grasping, is that
>this issue
>is so plainly obvious that anyone agreeing with you on that point doesn't
>know jack
>about basic scientific principles.
>
>One doesn't have to post there to know that- it IS that obvious.
>
>Chad
>
There ya go! Also see my post which I wrote before seeing this one.
Doug
Doug Gosha
>On 9 Dec 2004 21:17:20 -0500, dgo...@aol.com (Doug Gosha) wrote:
>
>>>The Ed Forum is not an arch LNT stronghold, as aaj is.
>>>
>>>Pamela
>>>
>>
>>Obviously, not an arch knowledge stronghold either.
>>
>>Doug
>
>And that would be based on your own experience there? :-0
>
>Pamela
>
No, but if they are backing your shadow theory, they therefore have no
knowledge of the way things work regarding the sun, shadows, and which
direction shadows are cast & stuff.
Doug
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2004 08:55:58 -0500, "Paul Seaton"
> <NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:aa6fr0pruu4bad43t...@4ax.com...
> >> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in
> >> the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the
> >> orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and
> >> also JFK and JBC.
> >>
> >> In addition, both are ignoring the gif of Z-frames which do show that
> >> orientation as well as the fact that the perimiter of the shadow is
> >> similar to that of the upper right corner of the Stemmons Freeway
> >> sign.
> >>
> >> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
> >>
> >> In addition, all if this discussion begs the question of whether or
> >> not the 'flop' is actually a shadow.
> >>
> >> I would cordially like to invite all of you who are interested in this
> >> subject to consider also enrolling and posting at the Ed Forum, where
> >> it seems that I am preaching to the choir. Fun though that is, I
> >> would rather move forward.
> >
> >Doesn't say much for the general state of scientific intelligence over at
> >the 'Ed Forum', now does it ?? :-)
>
> The Ed Forum is not an arch LNT stronghold, as aaj is.
The Ed Forum is not much of a "stronghold" of anything, judging by the
one discussion on it that you've shown us, since articles by only 2
people appear in it, one of whom is yourself & the other of whom has
only posted one article, which btw did not mention your theory of the
shadow of the sign falling on Connally at all.
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Here's the gif; check the orientation; look at the shadows inside the
> limo...yeah, right...<sigh>
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
Yes, I've looked & looked & looked at that gif. I clearly see sunlight
& shadow in the limo falling to the northeast.
> Apparently, sniping is easier than research for some. :-0
Apparently a continuous refusal to address a crucial element of your own
theory is quite easy for you.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
>Pamela wrote:
>
>
>>On 9 Dec 2004 21:17:20 -0500, dgo...@aol.com (Doug Gosha) wrote:
>>
>>>>The Ed Forum is not an arch LNT stronghold, as aaj is.
>>>>
>>>>Pamela
>>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously, not an arch knowledge stronghold either.
>>>
>>>Doug
>>
>>And that would be based on your own experience there? :-0
>>
>>Pamela
>>
>
>No, but if they are backing your shadow theory,
My equation involving shadow is different from Chad's simplistic
one-shadow theory, don't you agree?
http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
How do you explain the correlation between the STS sign and the shadow
on JBC's chest?
>they therefore have no
>knowledge of the way things work regarding the sun, shadows, and which
>direction shadows are cast & stuff
Well you're being a bit vague, aren't you? Perhaps that's part of the
Chad one-shadow mindset?
Pamela
Pamela McElwain-Brown
So Doug is a believer in Chad's one-shadow theory? The one he is
comfortable making demands about but has yet to define?
Does Paul have his own definition of shadow?
Doug Gosha
>On 11 Dec 2004 17:14:58 -0500, dgo...@aol.com (Doug Gosha) wrote:
>
>>Chad wrote:
>>
>>>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>news:cmtjr0pnpltlu7t6d...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 9 Dec 2004 21:17:20 -0500, dgo...@aol.com (Doug Gosha) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>The Ed Forum is not an arch LNT stronghold, as aaj is.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Pamela
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >Obviously, not an arch knowledge stronghold either.
>>>> >
>>>> >Doug
>>>>
>>>> And that would be based on your own experience there? :-0
>>>
>>>Um, what he's getting at, and you're having a hard time grasping, is that
>>>this issue
>>>is so plainly obvious that anyone agreeing with you on that point doesn't
>>>know jack
>>>about basic scientific principles.
>>>
>>>One doesn't have to post there to know that- it IS that obvious.
>>>
>>>Chad
>>>
>>
>>There ya go! Also see my post which I wrote before seeing this one.
>>
>>Doug
>
>So Doug is a believer in Chad's one-shadow theory? The one he is
>comfortable making demands about but has yet to define?
One light source = one shadow. It really is that simple. The sun was in
the southwest. This is the light source. The shadow would thus be cast to
the northeast. Elementary my dear Watson, er McElwain-Brown.
>Does Paul have his own definition of shadow?
Um, don't know but you apparently do.
Doug
Doug Gosha
>On 11 Dec 2004 17:14:49 -0500, dgo...@aol.com (Doug Gosha) wrote:
>
>>Pamela wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 9 Dec 2004 21:17:20 -0500, dgo...@aol.com (Doug Gosha) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>The Ed Forum is not an arch LNT stronghold, as aaj is.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pamela
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Obviously, not an arch knowledge stronghold either.
>>>>
>>>>Doug
>>>
>>>And that would be based on your own experience there? :-0
>>>
>>>Pamela
>>>
>>
>>No, but if they are backing your shadow theory,
>
>My equation involving shadow is different from Chad's simplistic
>one-shadow theory, don't you agree?
>
>http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
>How do you explain the correlation between the STS sign and the shadow
>on JBC's chest?
I'm afraid I don't see this "correlation" that you do.
>>they therefore have no
>>knowledge of the way things work regarding the sun, shadows, and which
>>direction shadows are cast & stuff
>
>Well you're being a bit vague, aren't you? Perhaps that's part of the
>Chad one-shadow mindset?
Vague? There is no vagary where the sun, light, and shadows are concerned.
It's elemental. One light source + one object = one shadow. Dig?
Doug
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2004 21:17:20 -0500, dgo...@aol.com (Doug Gosha) wrote:
>
> >>The Ed Forum is not an arch LNT stronghold, as aaj is.
> >>
> >>Pamela
> >
> >Obviously, not an arch knowledge stronghold either.
> >
> >Doug
>
> And that would be based on your own experience there? :-0
It would certainly be based on mine. Only one person ever replied to
you, & he said nothing about your theory that a shadow from the sign
fell upon Connally.
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2004 11:51:33 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:ijucr057c7mr0935q...@4ax.com...
> >> On 7 Dec 2004 14:31:33 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:qsvbr098g469nnonp...@4ax.com...
> >> >
> >> >(yep, more Cosell play by play)
> >> >
> >> >> Now Chad seems to be using another LNT tactic -- rather than
> >> >> acknowledge the burden of proof on the LNTs regarding 'their SBT' he
> >> >> attempts to push that responsibility back on the critic.
> >> >
> >> >Um, no. I was simply addressing ONE POINT of what you wrote in your
> >> >pig paper. A factual inconsistency.
> >>
> >> Untrue. You misrepresented the facts and confused them. Unless you
> >> really don't know what you are talking about?
> >>
> >> Here's the link to the essay "The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night"
> >>
> >> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
> >
> >Um, did you say:
> >
> >"With colossal arrogance, Posner used the 'lapel flip' as the crowning
> >glory of his book. And it wasnt' even true. The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as
> >I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow coming through the small side
> >window on the Presidential limousine. The apparent change in position is a
> >result of JBC's rotating forward. And, as you can clearly see in the
> >full-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow came from none other than
> >the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between Zapruder and the limousine."
> >
> >If I misunderstood, what did I misunderstand?
> >
> >You did say that it was the Stemmons Freeway sign shadow, right?
>
> I did. Now help me clarify what you are attempting to say. You have
> dismissed the small side window of the limo as being a factor in how
> light and shadow hit JBC,
No he hasn't. He has dismissed the possibility of the window having any
connection whatsoever of a SHADOW FROM THE STEMMONS FREEWAY SIGN. Not
light & shadow in general. JUST the shadow from that ONE OBJECT, the
SIGN.
So have I.
> have pulled photos from other orientations
> and claimed they represent that of Zapruder,
He NEVER said those photos
represent the orientation of Zapruder. Never. He INSTEAD said that the
photos all show the shadows of all persons & objects, including the
shadow of the sign itself, pointing a direction which is remarkably &
plainly inconsistent with a shadow from the sign extending toward the
limo at all.
> and are also claiming by
> inference that if there is no shadow from the Stemmons Freeway sign
> that means the lapel 'flop' isn't a flop, am I right?
Perhaps, maybe, possibly you're right about that last bit alone, but the
PRIMARY thing he's claiming is that it isn't a shadow from the sign,
whether or not it may be a shadow from something else.
That is also what I'm claiming.
I'm freely acknowledging that it might be a shadow.
It just isn't a shadow from the SIGN.
That is, quite obviously, an utter impossibility.
> >Pamela, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE STEMMONS FREEWAY SHADOW.
> >
> >That is it. I don't know what you keep mumbling about. I made no mention of
> >such things in this thread.
>
> You have made multiple misrepresentations of what I have said. Excuse
> me for attempting to address them!
You're not addressing anything he's said about your claim regarding that
shadow from the SIGN. Nor has he "misrepresented" in the slightest what
you've said about that shadow from the SIGN. He's quoted you directly
saying it, & addressed it directly, by showing you photo after photo
after photo, all of which unanimously show all shadows pointing to the
northeast.
> >> >> 2 -- The WC used incorrect limo measurements, per the HSCA-- 6 inches
> >> >> clearance v 2.5 inches, and 1.5 inches height difference when there
> >> >> was at least 3 inches (8 cm) difference.
> >> >
> >> >Again, not material in any capacity to this discussion. Glad to see that
> >> >you've figured
> >> >out that 8cm isn't 6". You're welcome.
> >>
> >> The clearance distance was never at issue. The height difference is what
> >> you are trying to make an issue out of. But you're not having any
> >> success, are you?
> >
> >No, read the damned post, Pamela. I never made an issue of any height. I
> >made
>
> You made an ERROR about the height and clearance discrepancy.
Not in this thread. He's talking about the SHADOW of the SIGN in this
thread. Why don't you say this in the thread where he actually said
what you're talking about?
> I
> pointed it out and corrected it.
Why do that in a thread in which he wasn't mentioning that, rather than
in another thread where he was?
> Can we stay on the same page now?
ROFL!!! We're all trying, & trying, & trying to get YOU to stay on the
same page.
Everyone but you is talking in THIS thread specifically about YOUR claim
that the lapel flip is actually a shadow from the SIGN.
> >an issue of your claim regarding the STEMMONS FREEWAY SIGN SHADOW
> >that you reference in your article.
>
> I am saying two things -- (1) I think the 'flop' is caused by a
> shadow; (2) because of the orientation of the Stemmons Freeway sign
> and the similarity in outline of the upper right corner of the sign
> and the shadow, that this is what -- refracting through the limo side
> window-- caused the shadow.
Well, you're finally talking about the shadow, at least. The problem is
that you still aren't addressing all the evidence AGAINST that being a
shadow from the SIGN that several of us have been continuously posting.
You're not explaining how the window can refract a shadow which does not
even extend to the window, but instead in a remarkably different
direction, away from the street entirely.
> >> >> Thus, the LNTs have yet to even prove an SB scenario.
> >> >
> >> >Red leader, stay on target. I was talking about the shadow, not
> >everything
> >> >except
> >> >the shadow.
> >>
> >> I was replying to your misrepresentations of the difference in
> >> measurements between the WC and HSCA.. You do recall rambling on about
> >> that, don't you?
> >
> >I'm talking about the shadow. Is that so hard to comprehend, or would you
> >prefer
> >not talking about it?
>
> You would apparently perfer to forget your own error Chad in mixing up
> the clearance and height differences. Your choice.
I find it fascinating how you accuse others of something you're quite
obviously far more guilty than they. Here you are again posting a very
*real* STRAWMAN. Chad once again brought up the shadow in that
paragraph, & you changed the topic to the clearance, etc. You're
addressing an argument he ISN'T making in THIS thread. You additionally
accuse him of meandering all over the place, & yet you meander far more
than he does. He's been constantly trying to keep the subject
specifically on your exact claim about that shadow, & you keep changing
the subject to things he only said in other threads, not a one of which
has a thing to do with your claim about that shadow.
> >> >What are they
> >> >> doing assuming it has been proven and demanding that those who
> >> >> disagree with it put up their proof?
> >> >
> >> >I don't know. That's not was I was addressing, was it? Did you, perhaps,
> >> >read
> >> >someone else's post and, perhaps, attribute it to me?
> >>
> >> You were complaining about the fact that I have pointed out serious
> >> discrepancies between the measurements used by the WC and the HSCA to
> >> attempt to prove their SB scenarios.
> >
> >Not in this thread.
>
> Are you acknowledging your error so we can move on from this?
Why aren't you asking him that in the thread in which he MADE that
error, if in fact he did make it? You're the one we're all waiting on
to move on to discussing what this present thread is actually about:
Your claim that the lapel flip is a shadow from the sign.
> >> >I was talking about the shadow.
> >>
> >> You were misrepresenting measurements. I thought you had acknowledged the
> >> 'lapel flop' was nothing more than a shadow. Posner jumped to an
> >> incorrect conclusion.
> >
> >Bull. What shadow? The Stemmons sign? Please do some research. That's
> >impossible.
> >I posted numerous photos that show this to be wrong.
>
> Chad has removed an element of the equation and then claims the
> equation to be 'wrong'. That is called a strawman argument Chad.
What element of the equation are you talking about? The window
refracting the shadow? If so, he didn't "remove" it, he simply proved
that it was impossible for that window to be connected in any way with a
shadow from that sign.
As have I.
Unless you care to dispute what I've said about the tilt of the earth's
axis, which is obviously entirely relevant to your claim about that
shadow, since the position of the sun in the sky due to that tilt is
entirely relevant to ANY shadow. You'd be also disputing the worldwide
scientific community as well, however, not just me.
> >This post was entirely
> >based upon
> >a shadow that has taken you 3 posts to acknowledge. I did not bring up
> >distances in this
> >post, did I?
>
> You also misrepresented the measurements. Hopefully you will
> acknowledge that and move on.
Strawman. That's in another thread. THIS thread is about YOUR claim
that the lapel flip is a refracted shadow from the Stemmons Freeway
Sign. You need to "move on" from whatever he said about the
measurements in some other thread, & discuss what all the rest of us are
discussing in THIS thread, including the one & only subject which was
brought up in the FIRST article in this thread, your own claim about the
shadow of that sign.
> >> >Write it down. Perhaps you and Tony can get
> >> >together and read my posts fully and take notes on what I actually said
> >> >versus
> >> >what you think I was thinking but didn't write.
> >>
> >> Huh? It isn't easy to follow the meandering.
> >
> >Um, you're meandering, Pamela. My post entitled 'Pamela's Cute Pig' was
> >entirely
> >founded on your shadowy argument- not measurements.
>
> QUOTE ON
>
> >has resorted to some of the more typical LNT tactics
>
> Yeah, facts. Damn those things.
>
> Kind of like that damn tactic I used to show that 8cm isn't 6"...it's
> called
> proper conversion
> beyond your editing.
>
> QUOTE OFF
>
> That is your misrepresentation of the measurements.
>From ANOTHER thread. Not THIS thread. Why do you keep demanding that
an entirely unrelated topic be resolved first before you'll discuss what
any of us have said about your exact claim regarding that shadow? You
can't discuss the shadow before this wholly different issue is resolved?
I'm sorry, but you are literally the most evasive poster I have ever
seen in this newsgroup in the past 2+ years. No one else even comes
close.
> 8cm refers to the
> height discrepancy of the WC/HSCA of 1.5/8cm; 6" refers to the
> clearance discrepancy of the WC/HSCA of 6"/2.5
>
> You introduced it Chad. Now you want to drop it. Fine.
He may have introduced it, but if so he introduced it in another thread.
And who says he wants to drop it? How do you know he won't be perfectly
willing to discuss it at length in ANOTHER thread?
You're the one who appears to want to drop all discussion of your claim
about the shadow of that sign.
> >> >> S-O-D (slime, obfuscate, divert). A legal tactic.
> >> >
> >> >The only diversion here is from you, Pamela. Not ONCE did you address
> >> >ANYTHING
> >> >related to my post. Heck, you never even once mentioned the shadow- THE
> >> >PRIMARY
> >> >SUBJECT OF MY POST.
> >>
> >> You were comfortable complaining about my essay without even having read
> >> it, weren't you? And now you are complaining that I am not reading your
> >> mind?
> >
> >I've read your article. Every word of it. However, I chose to address the
> >shadow
> >issue first.
>
> You have misrepresented what you term 'the shadow issue'.
And yet you utterly refuse to explain exactly HOW he has misrepresented
it. You said that he left out an element of that "equation," but you
never say what element that is.
> >Its not that you're not reading my mind- YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT READING
> >MY POSTS. This post was about the shadow that you don't want to talk about,
> >so
> >you are bringing up measurements and ANYTHING else that suits you.
>
> Untrue Chad.
It quite obviously IS true, because you do indeed bring up measurements
in direct reply to sentences which are only about the SHADOW & no other
issue whatsoever.
> You are a mod. Surely you take responsibility for your
> statements.
Surely he does. You do not appear to do so, however, since you won't
ever discuss what we actually say about your claim about that shadow of
the sign.
> See above.
See WHAT above? That you keep avoiding, & avoiding, & avoiding
addressing the arguments we have made against your shadow claim?
> >> Why not just spit it out Chad? Just what are you so lathered about?
> >
> >The shadow! READ the post.
>
> Stop misrepresenting it.
Misrepresenting what? Your claim about the shadow? Explain EXACTLY
what it is about your claim that he is misrepresenting. I've read your
article on that messageboard too, as well as the all the subsequent
articles you posted there, & I see him doing no such thing.
> >> >Would that be a tactic of any significant derivation? Or, is it simply a
> >> >tactic to scream 'tactic', then
> >> >employ the same tactic you are screaming about?
> >>
> >> Here's the gif showing the 'lapel flop'.
> >>
> >> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
> >>
> >> My position is that Posner owes us all an apology for jumping to a
> >> sinister conclusion.
> >
> >Posner wasn't the originator of the lapel flip, Pamela. Get your facts
> >straight. He
> >popularized it. Go find the true culprit and tell them that it was created
> >by a shadow
> >from a sign that was cast AWAY from Connally.
Yep, there it is.
And you made no reply to that at all. The shadow was indeed cast AWAY
from Connally.
Why do you keep refusing, & refusing, & refusing to address this exact
thing?
> >>That you choose to agree with him is up to you. Is
> >> that the problem? :-0
> >
> >Do you read the posts at all? Apparently not. So far you have barely
> >addressed anything
> >from the original post, save to say that the shadow IS the lapel flip.
> >That's it. You refuse
> >to address anything and are constantly changing the subject.
> >
> >Funny how you accuse everyone else of doing such things, yet are making it
> >routine with
> >your own posts.
>
> Why are you misrepresenting my statements and then criticizing my
> response to your strawman?
He isn't misrepresenting your statements about the SHADOW of the SIGN in
the slightest.
> >Let's try and discuss this shadow thing, shall we?
>
> Which version -- your strawman or the one I presented?
The one you presented, of course, the one which you keep refusing to
discuss here in this thread.
Which is quite obviously the exact version he's been discussing all
along.
As have I.
Caeruleo
dgo...@aol.com (Doug Gosha) wrote:
There is no "they" backing her up there on anything. Only one person
ever replied to her in that discussion, & that's a "he," not a "they," &
he commented in very little detail on specific claims she made, & said
nothing at all about her theory that a shadow from the sign fell upon
Connally & created the illusion of a lapel flip.
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2004 17:14:58 -0500, dgo...@aol.com (Doug Gosha) wrote:
>
> >Chad wrote:
> >
> >>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >>news:cmtjr0pnpltlu7t6d...@4ax.com...
> >>> On 9 Dec 2004 21:17:20 -0500, dgo...@aol.com (Doug Gosha) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >>The Ed Forum is not an arch LNT stronghold, as aaj is.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Pamela
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >Obviously, not an arch knowledge stronghold either.
> >>> >
> >>> >Doug
> >>>
> >>> And that would be based on your own experience there? :-0
> >>
> >>Um, what he's getting at, and you're having a hard time grasping, is that
> >>this issue
> >>is so plainly obvious that anyone agreeing with you on that point doesn't
> >>know jack
> >>about basic scientific principles.
> >>
> >>One doesn't have to post there to know that- it IS that obvious.
> >>
> >>Chad
> >>
> >
> >There ya go! Also see my post which I wrote before seeing this one.
> >
> >Doug
>
> So Doug is a believer in Chad's one-shadow theory?
No, he's a disbeliever in your own one-shadow theory.
> The one he is
> comfortable making demands about but has yet to define?
No, he's always been directly addressing the one you originally defined
yourself, that the lapel flip is actually *a* shadow from the sign.
> Does Paul have his own definition of shadow?
I suspect it's the same definition we all have, the blockage of a light
source by an object. Is there some remarkably different definition
you're using which has never before been seen in English?
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2004 17:14:49 -0500, dgo...@aol.com (Doug Gosha) wrote:
>
> >Pamela wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 9 Dec 2004 21:17:20 -0500, dgo...@aol.com (Doug Gosha) wrote:
> >>
> >>>>The Ed Forum is not an arch LNT stronghold, as aaj is.
> >>>>
> >>>>Pamela
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Obviously, not an arch knowledge stronghold either.
> >>>
> >>>Doug
> >>
> >>And that would be based on your own experience there? :-0
> >>
> >>Pamela
> >>
> >
> >No, but if they are backing your shadow theory,
>
> My equation involving shadow is different from Chad's simplistic
> one-shadow theory, don't you agree?
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
> How do you explain the correlation between the STS sign and the shadow
> on JBC's chest?
That it isn't actually a shadow from the sign, since no plausible
explanation has yet been given for how the shadow reaches Connally in
the first place.
> >they therefore have no
> >knowledge of the way things work regarding the sun, shadows, and which
> >direction shadows are cast & stuff
>
> Well you're being a bit vague, aren't you? Perhaps that's part of the
> Chad one-shadow mindset?
You yourself proposed a one-shadow scenario in your own original theory,
since you specifically said that the lapel flip is actually a shadow
from the Stemmons Freeway sign. You did *not* say "shadows," plural.
Are you trying to backpedal your way out of this now?
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2004 10:37:10 -0500, "Paul Seaton"
> <NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
> >> >In article <aa6fr0pruu4bad43t...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in
> >> >> the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the
> >> >> orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and
> >> >> also JFK and JBC.
> >> >
> >Thus Pamela assures me that a 'small side window' can alter the position of
> >the sun somehow.
>
> Oh great physicist! Just brilliant Paul. The side window affects the
> the manner in whichlight of the sun and shadow of the sign between
> Zapruder and the limo causes a shadow within the limo.
And I'm asking you directly to explain exactly HOW the side window does
this. I've been asking you this exact question over & over & over, &
you continuously refuse to answer it.
> You prefer to
> consider JBC without his orientation -- he was surrounded by glass,
> actually, on both sides, plus the windshield. All these things were
> affecting the way light and shadow played within the limo during the
> motorcade.
I'm sure it did. I'm still waiting & waiting & waiting for you to
explain exactly HOW a shadow, any shadow, from the SIGN SPECIFICALLY is
REACHING ANY OF THAT GLASS IN THE FIRST PLACE, so that this SAME SHADOW
can then be refracted onto Connally.
> >Placing implicit faith in Pamela, by golly I'm going out to buy me a 'small
> >side window'. ( BTW Pamela : Does it have to be a Ford small side window ??)
> >.. and I'm going to use my 'small side window' to move the sun a LOT higher
> >in the sky, here.
> >
> >Thus armed with our small side windows, is there anything we cannot achieve
> >?? .....
>
> Why not spew your righteous venom at Posner for jumping to a sinister
> conclusion rather than examining reasonable alternatives?
Because to support a theory which is even less plausible than his would
be counterproductive in refuting Posner. Examining reasonable
alternatives is fine. You have yet to demonstrate yours to be a
reasonable alternative.
> I'm just
> the messenger Paul.
You're the messenger of a badly formed theory which you keep refusing to
adequately support, because you continuously fail to acknowledge ALL of
the elements of your own equation which are required to make your own
equation work.
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:24:16 GMT, Barb Junkkarinen
> <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On 9 Dec 2004 14:16:40 -0500, drumr...@wmconnect.com (Drumrolls3)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>Subject: Re: Pamela's Cute Pig
> >>>From: Caeruleo caer...@yahoo.com
> >>>Date: 12/9/2004 8:14 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >>>Message-id: <caeruleo-CFE2BD...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
> >>>
> >>TOP POST FOR PAMELA:
> >>
> >> First, you say that the lapel buldge is caused by the window frame of the
> >>limo.
> >>You were shown to be wrong.
> >> Then, you say the lapel buldge was caused by a shadow from the Stemmons
> >>Freeway sign.
> >>
> >> All one would have to do is look at Kellerman as he comes out from behind
> >> the
> >>sign, and notice no such shadow appears on him. Then take a look at JFK as
> >>he
> >>is in the same position JBC was in only a fraction of a second before him.
> >>No...no shadow on JFK either.
> >>Then, all one has to do is look at the shadows cast by the people lining
> >>Elm
> >>Street, the tree in the background, and the limo itself on the street and
> >>see
> >>that Pamela has no idea what she is talking about.
> >
> >OUCH! Indeed, even if one doesn't know the science, a little
> >observation and a bit of common sense ... and wahlah. Good points,
> >Steve.
>
> If you're so savvy Barb, why haven't you shared with us your
> interpretation of how the side window(s) and windshield of the limo
> work to create shadows and even artifacts within the limo?
>
> In addition, as a proclaimed CT, why not assist in the destruction of
> the Posner lapel 'flop' rather than attempting to curry favor with the
> LNT's? :-0
Oh good gawd, there it is. We're supposed to support you merely because
we're on the same general side as you regarding this particular issue?
There's nothing at all wrong with assisting in the destruction of
Posner's lapel "flop," if that's what it is, in & of itself.
But it would be counterproductive for any CT to attempt to destroy
Posner's premise using a theory which is even LESS plausible than his.
That would merely give the CTs even LESS credibility than Posner, &
totally undermine their efforts to negate his own theory.
It would be the height of foolishness to accept just any alternate
theory on the lapel thing, just for the sake of trying to discredit
Posner & for no other reason. We need PLAUSIBLE alternate explanations
for it, Pam. Yours is not that, because you're failing to support your
theory adequately. You're continuously failing to explain how the
shadow of the sign REACHES the side window so that it can then be
refracted onto Connally. Were we to use your theory as you have so far
explained it in an attempt to discredit Posner, we'd discredit ourselves
even worse.
Has the fact that not even one CT in this entire newsgroup so far agreed
with you about that being a shadow from the sign finally sunk in? Do
you yet understand why that is?
They'll jump right on the bandwagon as soon as you supply a PLAUSIBLE
alternative to Posner.
The reason they haven't is of course because you have yet to defend your
own theory by explaining all of the elements it requires to make it work.
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2004 14:16:40 -0500, drumr...@wmconnect.com (Drumrolls3)
> wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Pamela's Cute Pig
> >>From: Caeruleo caer...@yahoo.com
> >>Date: 12/9/2004 8:14 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <caeruleo-CFE2BD...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
> >>
> >TOP POST FOR PAMELA:
> >
> > First, you say that the lapel buldge is caused by the window frame of the
> >limo.
>
> Stop misrepresenting me. Here is the gif
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
We've seen the gif. Over & over & over, ad nauseum. We've addressed
the gif directly, over & over & over, ad nauseum. Plain as day it shows
shadows pointing northeast.
> >You were shown to be wrong.
>
> Oh really? None of the super-physicists have even bothered to address
> the involvement of the side window in the equation I presented.
Bull, I've addressed it directly over & over & over, & I've asked you
over & over & over to explain precisely how the shadow of the sign
REACHES that window in the first place so that the shadow can then be
refracted onto Connally, & you keep refusing & refusing & refusing to
offer support of your OWN proposed element in your OWN theory to explain
this.
> In
> addition, there was another side window plus the windshield, or
> haven't you noticed? All of these throw shadows within the limo
> througout the motorcade.
I wouldn't be surprised that they do. I'm still waiting for you to
explain precisely how any of them are throwing a shadow from the
STEMMONS FREEWAY SIGN onto Connally, which was indeed your own exact
original claim.
> > Then, you say the lapel buldge was caused by a shadow from the Stemmons
> >Freeway sign.
>
> You have not bothered to acknowledge the equation I presented.
I have acknowledged it over & over & over, & I have asked you to explain
over & over & over how the position of the sun in the sky allows your
equation, just as you've presented it with no difference whatsoever, to
work. But you keep refusing & refusing & refusing to address the
position of the sun in the sky at all. You never, ever, ever mention
the position of the sun at all, even though that's just as crucial a
part of your equation as any other. Yet it's the one glaring omission
in your own theory that you keep refusing & refusing & refusing to
address in the slightest.
Why is that, Pamela?
Why continue to leave out the one remaining element of your own equation
which will make it actually work?
> You
> are trying to get me to defend your strawman.
No, we're trying to get you to explain the one element of your OWN
equation that you keep continuously leaving out, even though you've been
told about that exact element myriad times.
> Then take a look at JFK as he
> >is in the same position JBC was in only a fraction of a second before him.
> >No...no shadow on JFK either.
>
> Oh yes there is, on Z225 and Z226. It is partially blocked by JFK's
> lifted arm, but still visible.
I see no such shadow there, Pam. Honestly. And I've honestly tried to
see what you're talking about. I've looked at the film several times
recently, & I simply do not see that.
> And even so, JFK was in different
> orientation to the side window than JBC.
That he was. I'm still waiting & waiting & waiting for you to explain
exactly how the shadow of the sign REACHES that window in the first
place, so that the window can then refract that shadow onto Connally.
> >Then, all one has to do is look at the shadows cast by the people lining Elm
> >Street, the tree in the background, and the limo itself on the street and
> >see
> >that Pamela has no idea what she is talking about.
>
> No Steve, we know that you are pushing Chad's strawman.
No, instead, all of us know that you keep continuously leaving out a
crucial element of your own theory, the position of the sun in the sky
at the time. We've told you & told you & told you about this glaring
omission in your own theory, & you continuously refuse to address it.
> Why not get angry at Posner for creating this morass in the first
> place?
One can easily "get angry" at Posner, & still be even more angry at you
for proposing a theory which is even less plausible than his.
> I'm just the messenger.
Of a theory which is even less plausible than Posner's.
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2004 10:31:58 -0500, "Paul Seaton"
> <NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
> >"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:bb6hr0l23fn7ig12r...@4ax.com...
> >> Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
> >> me to defend it.
> >
> >Ahh ! .. if only you were half as good at geometry as you are at evasion....
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
> You are pushing the strawman and demanding that I defend it.
No, we're asking you to address a crucial element of your own theory
that you keep leaving out & leaving out & leaving out.
> In
> addition, you could better be spending your time focusing on Posner,
> who carelessly jumped to a sinister conclusion on the lapel 'flop'
> rather than trying to kill the messenger.
How would supporting a theory which is even less plausible than Posner's
be at all constructive toward the objective of refuting him? I don't
especially believe the lapel flip was caused by a bullet *either*,
Pamela, & I'd love to have something plausible to refute that, but
you're not providing it. You're instead offering a theory which is LESS
plausible than Posner's, & it would be counterproductive for me or
anyone else to use your theory to refute Posner, as it would make us
look even worse than him.
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:10:22 GMT, Barb Junkkarinen
> <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On 9 Dec 2004 14:17:58 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
> ><pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
> >>me to defend it.
> >>
> >>Pamela
> >
> >Pamela is comfortable introducing a theory and then doing the dip,
> >dive, divert and personal rambles rather than address a response that
> >points out that her thesis flys in the face of science.
>
> Barb refuses to acknowledge that demands are being made that I defend
> a strawman.
No, demands are being made for you to defend a crucial element of your
own exact theory, the element you keep continuously leaving out.
> Wait -- Barb has also forgotten what a strawman is!
No she hasn't. You, however, have apparently never understood the
meaning of the word to begin with.
> In addition, Barb has forgotten the larger issue -- that Posner jumped
> to an illogical and sinister conclusion without bothering to examine
> reasonable alternatives.
She hasn't forgotten that either. She simply doesn't believe your own
alternative is reasonable. Neither do I. Neither does anyone else.
That's because you keep refusing to adequately defend your very own
theory.
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
You can post that gif till doomsday (which is apparently your intention,
since you seem to include it in nearly every damned article you post),
yet until you explain the one absolutely crucial element of your own
theory that you keep leaving out, & make it a *plausible* explanation on
top of that, the posting of that gif will forever be utterly useless to
defend your own theory precisely as you yourself have presented it.
> Posner apparently didn't bother to take his high-tech to the
> full-frame Zapruder film.
And now that you have, you still fail to explain a crucial element of
your own theory.
> >She who always wants one thing or another to be acknowledged should be
> >able to acknowledge simple facts that are posted in response to her
> >and keep the discussion on the issue, shouldn't she?
>
> I am acknowledging the strawman argument.
No, you're refusing to discuss a crucial element of your own theory.
> Pamela :-)
> [...]
>
> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible,
> whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in
> Scarlet,
> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
I find that to be quite an interesting quotation that you keep using in
your .sig, since you do not seem to be following Doyle's advice. You
have yet to explain how it *isn't* impossible for the shadow of the sign
to reach the limo in the first place, which would include any part of
the limo, including *any* of its windows.
I ask you yet again:
How does the shadow of the sign REACH the side window in the first place
so that it can then be refracted onto Connally?
Until you answer this exact question, your theory will forever remain
even *less* plausible than Posner's. And unless your answer is ALSO
plausible, even if you DO answer it, your theory will STILL remain less
plausible than Posner's.
Caeruleo
Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2004 21:14:10 -0500, Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <bb6hr0l23fn7ig12r...@4ax.com>,
> > Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
> >> me to defend it.
> >
> >No, what he's actually doing is rightfully pointing out to you that the
> >tilt of the earth's axis absolutely precludes even the remotest
> >possibility of the shadow of that sign extending toward the street at
> >all at that latitude at that time of day at that time of year.
>
> Unfortunately, you are refusing to acknowledge that Paul is responding
> to Chad's strawman.
No, I'm instead telling you that you're leaving out a crucial element of
your own equation, one which is absolutely *required* to make your own
equation work.
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
> Here is the orientation of the equation I am presenting as a valid
> alternative to Posner's lapel 'flip'. Why not acknowledge the fact
> that the small side window is part of the equation?
I have acknowledged that very thing, over & over & over. I have
addressed the side window directly & unequivocally over & over & over,
in direct reply to you in myriad articles. What I keep asking you over
& over & over is precisely how the shadow of the sign REACHES the side
window in the first place so that it can then be refracted onto
Connally. You continuously refuse to acknowledge that the question is
even being asked. It's you who are failing to acknowledge a crucial
element of your own equation, not me.
> >Why do you keep refusing, & refusing, & refusing to address such a
> >simple & obvious thing, which was taught to all of us way back in grade
> >school for heaven's sake, as the position of the sun in the sky at that
> >latitude in the northern hemisphere at that time of year?
>
> The simple equation you are attempting to push is Chad's strawman.
No I'm not. I'm instead trying to get you to adequately defend your own
equation exactly as you've presented it with no difference whatsoever.
You aren't doing what I ask, because you keep refusing to address the
one element which is absolutely required to make your own equation work,
which is an explanation of how the shadow of the sign *reaches* the side
window in the first place, so that it can then be refracted onto
Connally.
> In addition, why not focus on the hocus-pocus Posner played on the LNT
> community by refusing to even look at benign alternatives?
How dare you. I have indeed looked at benign alternatives, & posted
them in this newsgroup in the past. I simply believe that YOUR benign
alternative is even LESS plausible than Posner.
> He jumped
> to a sinister conclusion.
Maybe he did. If so, the proper way to refute him is to come up with a
PLAUSIBLE alternative. You have utterly failed to do that.
> I'm just the messenger.
You're the messenger of a poorly-formed theory which is even less
plausible than Posner's, the support of which is counterproductive to
refuting him.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
>In article <bb6hr0l23fn7ig12r...@4ax.com>,
> Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
>> me to defend it.
>
>No, what he's actually doing is rightfully pointing out to you that the
>tilt of the earth's axis absolutely precludes even the remotest
>possibility of the shadow of that sign extending toward the street at
>all at that latitude at that time of day at that time of year.
I didn't say that.
I said:
QUOTE ON
1 -- Zapruder's orientation and
2 -- The small side window in the limo
contributed to the fact that the shadow,
3 -- Carrying the same perimeter shape as the top right corner of the
Stemmons Freeway sign create the 'flop'.
QUOTE OFF
The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night url:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=ST&f=197&t=2372&st=0#entry14042
The gif showing the correlation between the SFS and the shadow on
JBC's lapel:
http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
Your responses are offputting as well, making it difficult for me to
sift out anything possibly of value from your posts.
>
>Why do you keep refusing, & refusing, & refusing to address such a
>simple & obvious thing, which was taught to all of us way back in grade
>school for heaven's sake, as the position of the sun in the sky at that
>latitude in the northern hemisphere at that time of year?
I have done no such thing. I have said the limo is turning into the
sun, and also that JBC is rotating.
Pamela
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A
Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
"Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary
Pamela McElwain-Brown
>In article <42ler090jbeg261op...@4ax.com>,
> Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8 Dec 2004 11:48:32 -0500, "Paul Seaton"
>> <NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Pamela,
>> >
>> >You need to double check what you think you can 'clearly see', because you
>> >are 'clearly seeing' something that provably isn't happening.
>> >
>> >Here's your essay :
>> >
>> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
>> >
>> >You say :
>> >
>> >"The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow
>> >coming through the small side window on the Presidential limousine. The
>> >apparent change in position is a result of JBC's rotating forward. And, as
>> >you can clearly see in the full-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow
>> >came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between
>> >Zapruder and the limousine. "
>> >
>> >You complain about Posner :
>> >
>> >"With all the technology that Posner by his own assertions had at his
>> >disposal one would think that he would have examined and excluded every
>> >other possibility, wouldn't it?"
>> >
>> >Unfortunately, unless the sun momentarily flipped to the north (& let's
>> >recall Dallas is in the northern hemisphere & it was mid-day ) there is no
>> >way on earth that "the shadow came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway
>> >sign", since the sign was north of the limo.
>> >
>> >Chad has posted enough graphics to make this ultra-clear to even the most
>> >geographically challenged.
>> >
>> >Since you complain so much about others 'hodge-podge of misrepresentations'
>> >& their "continu[ing] to spew forth ridiculous garbage only to deceive the
>> >naive. ' perhaps a frank admission that you screwed up would be in order at
>> >this point. ?
>>
>> Here is the gif that shows the orientation of Zapruder, the limo, and
>> JBC:
>>
>> http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
>Yeppers, & it clearly shows the shadow of a bystander in the grass
>across the street pointing to the northeast. It is also the *left* side
>of JBC's face, for example, which is being illuminated by the sun, which
>means that given the direction his head is turned, the sun is shining on
>his face from the southwest. The sun cannot both cast shadows to the
>northeast & southeast at the same time, thus no shadow from the sign can
>be reaching anywhere near Connally. Your own gif proves that beyond all
>possible doubt.
>
>Congratulations.
Congratulations on re-debunking the strawman.
>
>> 1 --In Chad's 'flop' scenario he has chosen to ignore my statement
>> that the small side window of the limousine was involved in the
>> refraction of the shadow that fell on JBC's chest.
>
>Maybe a shadow of *something*, yes. But certainly not a shadow of the
>*sign*. The sun was in entirely the wrong position in the sky for that.
Until I analyzed the full-frames from the Z-film I had thought it was
perhaps a shadow from the metal bar in front of JBC. Do you not agree
that there seems to be a correlation between the movement past the SFS
and the shadow in the gif above?
>
>> 2 -- In Chad's haste to jump to the conclusion that this shadow could
>> not be a shadow, he has managed to assemble photos from other
>> orientations which do nothing to help orient the reader to the
>> Z-frames.
>
>How on earth is another photo which clearly shows the shadow of the sign
>on the grass pointing northeast, & thus more *away* from the street than
>toward it, not entirely relevant to a claim that the sign's shadow fell
>upon Connally?
I am talking about the interaction of the side window. Position a piece
of glass in front and to the right of a stationary opaque form with the
light source above and to the right of both and see what happens.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>
>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:svpjr0tal7b17fkep...@4ax.com...
>> Barb is attempting to push the strawman, while forgetting
>> what the definition of a strawman is. Cute!
>
>Pamela, you are being non-sensical.
Take a step back Chad.
>There are verifiable persistent problems
>with your theory. The Stemmons shadow CANNOT be where you are saying
>it is. That is a terrible problem for your analysis. You are evading that
>terrible
>conclusion for self preservation.
Chad, are you able to see the difference between your statements (the
strawman) and what I am saying?
QUOTE ON
1 -- Zapruder's orientation and
2 -- The small side window in the limo
contributed to the fact that the shadow,
3 -- Carrying the same perimeter shape as the top right corner of the
Stemmons Freeway sign create the 'flop'.
END QUOTE
Link to the essay "The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night"bbb
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=ST&f=197&t=2372&st=0#entry14042
Link to gif showing orientation of SFS and shadow on JBC's chest
http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
>
>I'm truly sorry that you are staking your credibility on this claim.
I am sorry that you and I are unable to communicate on such an obvious
distinction. Why are you refusing to focus on the limo and the side
window?
>
>Everyone else knows that the shadow cannot be there.
I didn't say it was. See above. Whew from exhaustion. :-0