The Gutless Wonders of aaj
Pamela McElwain-Brown
arrogant diatribe, hoping to be cheered on by the likes of the Barb
and other grumblers on aaj, which is little more than a neo-Nazi
arch-LNT stronghold that decries research and investigation of most
any sort.
This bunch of one-shadow-only gutless wonders have spent a week
misrepresenting my position and making demands that I defend their
strawman. And they have done it all here, on Usenet, which is in
their comfort zone.
Cowards!
Pamela
On 12 Dec 2004 16:52:36 -0500, "John Hunt" <johnh...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Pamela Brown wrote an essay on those who have posited a SBT entitled The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night, which can be found at:
>
>
>
>http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=ST&f=197&t=2372&st=0#entry14042
>
>
>
>That piece is so shot full of factual errors and lame analysis it boggles the mind. What follows is an accounting of some of Brown's many and serious errors of fact. My comments are inserted in [red bracketed text. Irrelevant stuff has been snipped.]
>
>
>
>
>
>[Sow Many Errors]
>
>
>However, there was just one small problem -- the limousine SS-100-X in which JFK had been shot was not available. It had been conveniently whisked out of DC soon after the assassination and was gutted down to the frame to be rebuilt. [General Note: Brown insinuates that some unidentified nefarious people desired to cover up evidence and so they "whisked" the limo away. But Brown does not have the chutzpa to actually say what she thinks. She merely leaves the impression that that is what happened. This unfortunate quality runs through much of her writing. The reality is much simpler; Kennedy was murdered in an un-armored limo. Johnson and the SS wanted a limo with armor. It was much quicker to refit the assassination limo than to start from scratch, which is exactly what happened. The question left unasked by the less-than-thorough Brown is, Was the limo refit completed by the time the FBI/WC re-created the assassination in Dallas? If so, why was the Queen Mary used for the
>re-creation??]
>
>
>
>The Warren Commission apparently 'released' the car on December 20, 1963. [A citation here would have been nice.]
>
>
>
>What this seems to mean is that they were told (or believed) that the car was of no further use to the investigation and was in a timeline to be rebuilt as quickly as possible. [Again, a citation is required. Otherwise, Brown had simply offered unsupported speculation.]
>
>In any case, according to the WC members [Citation??], they had been told (or believed) that all 7-passenger limousines were alike. [This statement is absurd, for the WC members had eyes. Brown is simply attempting to pass rhetoric off as analysis.]
>
>
>
>And there just happened to be another one available -- the follow-up SS car in the Dallas motorcade -- Queen Mary II -- the 1956 Cadillac SS-679-X. This car had a higher profile than 100X and its jump seats were higher as well. [Were Brown more aware, she would understand that Frazier and the FBI went to substantial lengths to take into account the differences between the two limos and compensate for them (62-109060-8307X-Box 111C). Whether or not they were successful is another story.]
>
>The objective of the WC was not to determine IF LHO could have fired all the shots but to demonstrate HOW he was able to do this. [Here Brown is simply wrong. Although I believe the WC knew the re-creation was not dispositive, Arlen Specter sent Rankin a memorandum suggesting that a shot from the Triple Underpass be looked at (62-109060-8307X-Box 111C). Wrote Specter:
>
>
>
>C. A determination should be made whether the wound on President Kennedy or Governor Connally could have been caused by a shot fired from the Triple Underpass.
>
>
>
>That is exactly what happened according to Frazier (62-109060-8307X-Box 111C); J. Lee Rankin observed the limo from the underpass and reported that a shot could hit JFK without penetrating the windshield (62-109060-8307X-Box 111C). Commentators (myself included) have been beating up on the WC for years. And with good reason. But what Brown has done here is take the easy way out. She simply accuses the WC of not taking into account other firing positions without knowing if they did or not. She assumed they did not, then sated it as fact. She was wrong. Whether or not they looked at a GK shot is unknown to me.]
>
>
>
>This is called reverse logic -- start with the conclusion and move backward. [The Pot and the Kettle comes to mind.]
>
>
>Robert Frazier was the FBI ballistics expert who sat in the SN of the TSBD during the reenactment. He used very precise language and said that it was "entirely possible" that JFK and JBC were hit with one bullet between frames 207-225 (VH170). However the WC re-interpreting Frazier's statements in the WCR by saying "it was LIKELY" and "PROBABLE" that this had occurred (WCR, 105). [Here Brown needlessly mangles the historical record. The WCR related that:
>
>
>
>According to Special Agent Robert. A. Frazier, who occupied the position of the assassin in the sixth-floor window during the reenactment, it is likely that the bullet which passed through the President's neck, as described previously, then struck the automobile or someone else in the automobile. [286]" (WCR105)
>
>
>
>The WC citation (286) refers the reader to Frazier's testimony at 5H168-69, which reads:
>
>
>
>Mr. FRAZIER. In my opinion the bullet had to strike in the car, either the car itself or an occupant of the car.
>
>Mr. SPECTER. And is that a probable opinion of yours based on what you saw during the tests and the facts I have asked you to assume?
>
>Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is. (5H169)
>
>
>
>Whatever its many faults, in this instance the WC did not misquote its own record as Brown claims. Obviously, Brown did not bother to verify the WC citation before stating that they "re-interpret[ed] Frazier's statements." If she had taken that simple logical step, she would have known better. The image left is not that of a careful documentarian.]
>
>
>
> "The WCR gave no frame number, and did not specify that Frazier was referencing the concept of a range of frames. [Again Brown has it wrong. Frazier's cited testimony refers to a bullet going through Kennedy's neck having to hit the limo or an occupant. It has nothing to do with any range of frames.]
>
>In the WC's enthusiasm for truth they had two drawings created of the two limousines -- the Presidential Limousine SS-100-X and SS-679-X that was used in the reenactment. There are numerous measurements shown on them. However, there is one dimension missing -- the height. Of course, that is THE critical dimension for making a comparison between one car and the other. [As noted, the FBI took the differing height dimensions into account (62-109060-8307X-Box 111C). Brown's ignorance of that fact indicates just how little effort she put into her Pig essay. Were Brown more aware, she would have known that Gauthier actually measured the presidential limo for seat height, width, and separation (62-109060-8307X-Box 111C). She would also know that hat was why they raised SA Anderton by having him sit on a pad (62-109060-8307X-Box 111C).]
>
>In addition, there is no measurement shown for the clearance between the side door of 100X and the side of the jump seat. [Gauthier measured that distance. (62-109060-8307X-Box 111C). The Secret Service did not include that measurement on the diagram they prepared for the WC.] This is a critical measurement in terms of determining the positions of JFK and JBC. In addition, it should have been the catalyst for controversy in the later investigation done by the HSCA. Yet, as we will see, there was no controversy. Yes, we have a little mystery on our hands -- one that would probably not have occurred if SS-100-X had been available for the reenactment. [The only a mystery here is how it came to pass that Brown published an essay containing so many factual errors. Brown shows herself to be a sloppy documentarian.]
>
>During the WC testimony of SS Inspector Thomas Kelley, who was rushed to Dallas immediately following the assassination and coordinated everything there for the SS, including the reenactment, [Kelley did not coordinate the WC reenactment. Specter and Frazier did. (62-109060-8307X-Box 111C).]
>
>Thus, the WC attempted to accommodate the differences between the cars by changing the position of the 'wounds'. [Here, Brown misleads the reader through ignorance of the readily accessible record. The WC didn't move the back wound to "to accommodate the differences between the cars." Kennedy's "back wound" was placed according to the measurements in the autopsy report, right or wrong. According to Frazier, "They had marked on the back of the President's coat the location of the wound, according to the distance from the top of his head down to the hole in his back as shown in the autopsy figures (5H166).]
>
>
>
>The HSCA decided to start by 'accepting' the WC SB scenario. [That is absolutely untrue. Absent any citation to buttress her bogus claim, I will assume Brown simply made it up. The fact is that the once-secret HSCA files covering Tom Canning's work, hundreds of which I have collected, demonstrate conclusively that Canning started from scratch. He did not "start by 'accepting' the WC SB scenario." (See HSCA RN 180-10077-10266, HSCA RN 180-10090-10136, HSCA RN 180-10089-10405, HSCA RN 180-10084-10492, HSCA RN 180-10084-10452, HSCA RN 180-10084-10047, HSCA RN 180-10078-10392 HSCA RN 180-10085-10495, etc.) The bottom line is that, despite what she would have you believe, Brown has no idea what she is talking about. I personally find this type of misinformation-based ambush highly disturbing.]
>
>The HSCA.should have taken into account the fact that the new Hess and Eisenhardt drawing of the limo showed the clearance between the passenger door and passenger car seat to have been 2.5 inches (not 6 inches as the WC had believed). [Here, Brown parades her ignorance of the record for all to see, for Canning used the "2.5" H+E number to construct the diagram in his report (6HSCA50). That was the same diagram he used for his trajectory analysis. Brown bitches about the wrong number being when the number she likes WAS used. Brown's exceptionally thorough unawareness of the evidence is a monumental embarrassment to all serious students of the Kennedy assassination. It is garbage like this that paints us all with an ugly hue.]
>
>
>The HSCA also did a trajectory analysis of the shots. However, when it came to their SB scenario, they only concerned themselves with where the shot had hit JFK, and ignored the subsequent position of JBC. [Brown could not be more wrong! Canning worked up a JBC/JFK SBT trajectory. The HSCA published Canning's report in Volume VI in which he devotes pages 47-56 to the SBT. Yet Brown claims that did not happen. Even though Brown discusses the HSCA trajectories, she has no idea what work they actually performed! At this point, Brown's complete lack of academic rigor is simply unsettling. The appearance is left of a sloppy documentarian pushing an agenda.]
>
>
>
>The shots were followed back to a cone of possibility -- that, of course, being the TSBD. When one member suggested that the cone be expanded to include other buildings they were promptly quieted. [This statement is completely false. Each of Canning's trajectory error cones encompassed the roof of the Dal-Tex (Interview with the author). Canning explained to the HSCA:
>
>
>
>I think the first part of your hypothetical extension is quite reasonable, because the eastern sector of the error circle extends beyond the corner of the School Book Depository and therefore includes a little bit of the Dal-Tex Building--it would then clearly be the candidate, and there would be an area on the western part of the Dal-Tex Building which would then have to be included. (2HSCA199)
>
>
>
>Whatever credibility Brown may have had as a serious commentator on the Kennedy assassination has been squandered.]
>
>
>
>
>
>A term that came into use as a result of the HSCA SB scenario is that JBC was 'well inboard' of JFK. Anyone who examines many of the motorcade photos realizes that a different perspective is shown on many of them regarding the relationship of the positions of JFK and JBC. The HSCA was comfortable with the logic of 'if it looks that way, it must be so'. And apparently nobody questioned it. [The HSCA employed photogrammetry of the Z-film (correctly) and the Betzner photo (incorrectly) to determine the placement of Connally. They came to the same conclusions as ITEK, who used the same photogrammetrical method and the Z-film. Brown's mischaracterization of the HSCA methodology of placing Connally as being superficial actually evidences her own academic shallowness.]
>
>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? Would someone trying to put an end to over 30 years of questions just choose to jump to a conclusion without having thoroughly vetted his idea? With colossal arrogance, Posner used the 'lapel flip' as the crowning glory of his book. And it wasn't 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. (Figure 3) [Brown claims that the Stemmons sign cast a shadow over Connally giving the appearance of movement of the jacket lapel. How Brown came up with that conclusion is a
>mystery. What is not a mystery is that it is embarrassingly, monumentally, and demonstrably wrong. Not only do the relevant photos show the shadow of the Stemmons sign going away from Connally, but science and a modicum of knowledge about our solar system proves it as well. In Figure H-1 I have placed the limo at Z-224. The direction of the sunlight is placed to the degree according to the Sun's location relative to Dealey Plaza at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63.
>
>
>
>
>
>Figure H-1
>
>
>
>The red line in Figure H-1 is the direction of sunlight. The blue line is Zapruder's line of sight. The green line is the direction of sunlight over Connally's position. How could Brown possibly have thought the Stemmons sign could cast a shadow over Connally?? Including such an obvious and readily avoidable gaff in a piece that is supposed to be serious is comical at best. One wonders, did Brown do any homework on the issue of the shadow?? Brown's haughty words come back to haunt her: "Would someone trying to put an end to over 30 years of questions just choose to jump to a conclusion without having thoroughly vetted his idea?" Brown needs to take a close look in that mirror.
>
>
>
>The rest of her essay is just more of the same, and so I'll stop here.
>
>
>
>We conspiracy theorists generally agree that the SBT is nonsense. I am one of those. Still, Brown has manage to distinguished herself by created one of the all-time sloppiest pieces ever written on the Kennedy assassination.]
>
>
>
>John Hunt
"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
Pamela McElwain-Brown
John McAdams
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Unable to write legibly or coherently, John Hunt simply spews out
>arrogant diatribe, hoping to be cheered on by the likes of the Barb
>and other grumblers on aaj, which is little more than a neo-Nazi
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>arch-LNT stronghold that decries research and investigation of most
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>any sort.
^^^^^^^^
My, my. Disagree with Pamela and you're a "neo-Nazi."
>
>This bunch of one-shadow-only gutless wonders have spent a week
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>misrepresenting my position and making demands that I defend their
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>strawman. And they have done it all here, on Usenet, which is in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>their comfort zone.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Cowards!
^^^^^^^
Pamela's silly theory has been taking a drubbing on the moderated
group.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:32:41 GMT, Pamela McElwain-Brown
><pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Unable to write legibly or coherently, John Hunt simply spews out
>>arrogant diatribe, hoping to be cheered on by the likes of the Barb
>>and other grumblers on aaj, which is little more than a neo-Nazi
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>arch-LNT stronghold that decries research and investigation of most
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>any sort.
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>My, my. Disagree with Pamela and you're a "neo-Nazi."
Translation: McAdams is the chief at aaj. He objects to anyone
defining the slanted field there. He wants to keep the newbies naive.
He has the Barb and the boer John Hunt to help him try to dumb down
the CTs. Shhhh. Nobody's supposed to know that!
>
>>
>>This bunch of one-shadow-only gutless wonders have spent a week
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>misrepresenting my position and making demands that I defend their
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>strawman. And they have done it all here, on Usenet, which is in
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>their comfort zone.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Cowards!
> ^^^^^^^
>
>Pamela's silly theory has been taking a drubbing on the moderated
>group.
Translation: John refuses to acknowledge that what the aaj-whiz kids
are unable to understand they lash out at and misrepresent. Hence,
they're tilting at windmills filled with STRAW on aaj and that is
called 'research'. And that's the only place they seem to feel
comfortable doing it. :-0
Pamela :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 13 Dec 2004 17:13:42 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:32:41 GMT, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>><pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Unable to write legibly or coherently, John Hunt simply spews out
>>>arrogant diatribe, hoping to be cheered on by the likes of the Barb
>>>and other grumblers on aaj, which is little more than a neo-Nazi
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>arch-LNT stronghold that decries research and investigation of most
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>any sort.
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>
>>My, my. Disagree with Pamela and you're a "neo-Nazi."
>
>Translation: McAdams is the chief at aaj. He objects to anyone
>defining the slanted field there. He wants to keep the newbies naive.
>He has the Barb and the boer John Hunt to help him try to dumb down
>the CTs. Shhhh. Nobody's supposed to know that!
You seem to be the only CT that is beyond dumb on the basics of
shadows, Pamela. Have you noticed that NO one ... ANYwhere .... has
stepped in to say anything remotely positive about all your shadow
nonsense?
One would think that would give you a leeeeetle clue. Shadows are not
reflections or refractions, Pamela, no matter how you try to fancy it
up.
>>
>>>
>>>This bunch of one-shadow-only gutless wonders have spent a week
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>misrepresenting my position and making demands that I defend their
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>strawman. And they have done it all here, on Usenet, which is in
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>their comfort zone.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>Cowards!
>> ^^^^^^^
>>
>>Pamela's silly theory has been taking a drubbing on the moderated
>>group.
>
>Translation: John refuses to acknowledge that what the aaj-whiz kids
>are unable to understand they lash out at and misrepresent. Hence,
>they're tilting at windmills filled with STRAW on aaj and that is
>called 'research'. And that's the only place they seem to feel
>comfortable doing it. :-0
You just come here to bawl whenever you pull another stunt that
backlashes on you. This one has been a doozy ... this time you took on
the laws of science and still cannot admit you are wrong. You are
under quite a gloomy shadow now, Pamela ... and it's all not
reflecting well on you. HAHAHAH!
Carry on, you will anyway. :-)
Barb :-)
Stephen Stocker
> Unable to write legibly or coherently, John Hunt simply spews out
> arrogant diatribe, hoping to be cheered on by the likes of the Barb
> and other grumblers on aaj, which is little more than a neo-Nazi
> arch-LNT stronghold that decries research and investigation of most
> any sort.
>
> This bunch of one-shadow-only gutless wonders have spent a week
> misrepresenting my position and making demands that I defend their
> strawman. And they have done it all here, on Usenet, which is in
> their comfort zone.
>
> Cowards!
>
> Pamela
Well, everyone needs a hobby. Misrepresentation happens to be the only
forte of that group.
Fortunately, not much of anyone takes Usenet seriously.
Steve
Stephen Stocker
Yes. Just like all the rest of those "silly theories" which shoot down
the official party line.
Hint: It was discredited 30 years ago.
Steve
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>On 2004-12-12, Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Unable to write legibly or coherently, John Hunt simply spews out
>> arrogant diatribe, hoping to be cheered on by the likes of the Barb
>> and other grumblers on aaj, which is little more than a neo-Nazi
>> arch-LNT stronghold that decries research and investigation of most
>> any sort.
>>
>> This bunch of one-shadow-only gutless wonders have spent a week
>> misrepresenting my position and making demands that I defend their
>> strawman. And they have done it all here, on Usenet, which is in
>> their comfort zone.
>>
>> Cowards!
>>
>> Pamela
>
> Well, everyone needs a hobby. Misrepresentation happens to be the only
> forte of that group.
>
> Fortunately, not much of anyone takes Usenet seriously.
>
> Steve
Steve,
You've nailed the issue, I think. The brainiacs at aaj are unable to
laugh at themselves or their errors. They blabber on about what
others should do, then are too haughty to take their own advice.
At least they have unmasked themselves sufficiently so that anyone who
is curious can google for themselves. Hilarious. :-0
Pamela :-)
Jerry Organ
>> Unable to write legibly or coherently, John Hunt simply
>> spews out arrogant diatribe, hoping to be cheered on
>> by the likes of the Barb and other grumblers on aaj,
>> which is little more than a neo-Nazi arch-LNT stronghold
>> that decries research and investigation of most any sort.
>> This bunch of one-shadow-only gutless wonders have
>> spent a week misrepresenting my position and making
>> demands that I defend their strawman. And they have
>> done it all here, on Usenet, which is in their comfort zone.
>> Cowards!
>> Pamela
> Stephen wrote:
> Well, everyone needs a hobby. Misrepresentation happens
> to be the only forte of that group.
>
> Fortunately, not much of anyone takes Usenet seriously.
>
> Steve
It got so bad over there, I came over here for a bit of light banter about
poison gas, napalm and thermonuclear global destruction. Great fun
tongue-n-cheekin the Yanks.
Hang in there, Pam--yer takin some heavy artillery. Soon enough, someone
will lay a real hippo turd at aaj. The pirranhas will strip his bones to a
polished ivory.
It may explain why people like David Lifton are lonelier than the Maytag
Repairman. Harold Weisberg was the Groucho Marx of the lot.
Sure wish I could have sat in the JFK limousine seat. It must have been a
great experience.
Jerry
Robert Harris
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 13 Dec 2004 17:13:42 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:32:41 GMT, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>><pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Unable to write legibly or coherently, John Hunt simply spews out
>>>arrogant diatribe, hoping to be cheered on by the likes of the Barb
>>>and other grumblers on aaj, which is little more than a neo-Nazi
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>arch-LNT stronghold that decries research and investigation of most
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>any sort.
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>
>>My, my. Disagree with Pamela and you're a "neo-Nazi."
>
>Translation: McAdams is the chief at aaj. He objects to anyone
>defining the slanted field there. He wants to keep the newbies naive.
>He has the Barb and the boer John Hunt to help him try to dumb down
>the CTs. Shhhh. Nobody's supposed to know that!
Well, you are absolutely full of crap on the shadow thing, but you
seem to have Mcadams & co. figured out.
At least now there is something I can agree with you on :-)
Robert Harris
Pamela McElwain-Brown
<jerry...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> Pamela wrote:
>
>>> Unable to write legibly or coherently, John Hunt simply
>>> spews out arrogant diatribe, hoping to be cheered on
>>> by the likes of the Barb and other grumblers on aaj,
>>> which is little more than a neo-Nazi arch-LNT stronghold
>>> that decries research and investigation of most any sort.
>
>>> This bunch of one-shadow-only gutless wonders have
>>> spent a week misrepresenting my position and making
>>> demands that I defend their strawman. And they have
>>> done it all here, on Usenet, which is in their comfort zone.
>
>>> Cowards!
>
>>> Pamela
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>
>> Well, everyone needs a hobby. Misrepresentation happens
>> to be the only forte of that group.
>>
>> Fortunately, not much of anyone takes Usenet seriously.
>>
>> Steve
>
>It got so bad over there, I came over here for a bit of light banter about
>poison gas, napalm and thermonuclear global destruction. Great fun
>tongue-n-cheekin the Yanks.
Yes, I empathize. It's been awful. Finally I've gotten to see how
puffed up and silly they all are, and it makes things a lot more fun
to kind of let them hang and unmask themselves.
>
>Hang in there, Pam--yer takin some heavy artillery. Soon enough, someone
>will lay a real hippo turd at aaj. The pirranhas will strip his bones to a
>polished ivory.
Yes, that could be interesting.
>
>It may explain why people like David Lifton are lonelier than the Maytag
>Repairman. Harold Weisberg was the Groucho Marx of the lot.
Yes. Not the popular ones, are they? Do you think they too got fed
up with the appeal to the masses? :-0
>
>Sure wish I could have sat in the JFK limousine seat. It must have been a
>great experience.
I haven't been able to do that yet Jerry. I spent a week at the Henry
Ford Museum, and spent a lot of time with the car, but that was it.
When I was being interviewed for the "Presidential Limo" documentary
that's currently airing I was originally slated to join the crew at
the HFM, and I would have had access to the car. However, that was
changed at almost the last minute, and I ended up going to LA instead.
That is still a dream of mine, though...
Pamela
>
>Jerry
Jerry Organ
>>
>> Sure wish I could have sat in the JFK limousine seat.
>> It must have been a great experience.
>>
>> Jerry
Ted Gittinger wrote:
> Oh, I assure you that you are bang on.
>
> ("Bang on" is an acceptable term in your patois, I hope.
> Please correct me if I have erred; my old Brit gunnery
> instructor tried his best, but I suspect that his efforts
> were not without the occasional error.)
>
> Sitting next to JFK and getting spattered with his brains
> was no doubt the experience of a lifetime. No wonder
> you envy the actual participants.
LOL, Ted!!
I thought Pamela said she had snuck a sitdown on the backseat of the JFK
limo at the Henry Ford.
http://www.thehenryford.org/museum/aal/x100.asp
Now, if one were in a backseat WITH Pamela, that might be "bang on."
I just watched on CMT the "Dukes of Hazards" episode with the "Presidential
Limo." They were tearin thru the countryside like LBJ used to do on the
ranch with his own open Continental. Coo Coo!
> I hear that Disneyworld is hiring. Give them a shout.
Hire anybody--lax security screening? Hmmmm.
Jerry