Re: Pamela's Cute Pig

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Pamela McElwain-Brown

unread,
Dec 6, 2004, 11:25:06 PM12/6/04
to
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.

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

unread,
Dec 7, 2004, 9:19:15 AM12/7/04
to

"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

unread,
Dec 7, 2004, 2:21:35 PM12/7/04
to
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. 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

unread,
Dec 7, 2004, 2:31:37 PM12/7/04
to

"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.

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

unread,
Dec 7, 2004, 3:29:52 PM12/7/04
to
On 7 Dec 2004 14:31:33 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
wrote:

>If I were a rabid CT

Instead of a rabid LNT?

LOL


PF

Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Dec 7, 2004, 6:17:14 PM12/7/04
to

"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

unread,
Dec 7, 2004, 11:35:06 PM12/7/04
to
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

>
> 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

unread,
Dec 8, 2004, 11:48:32 AM12/8/04
to

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

www.paulseaton.com/jfk


Caeruleo

unread,
Dec 8, 2004, 11:50:36 AM12/8/04
to
In article <rst9r0lb2ba3augbf...@4ax.com>,
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

unread,
Dec 8, 2004, 11:51:33 AM12/8/04
to

"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?

>
> >
> > 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

unread,
Dec 8, 2004, 2:52:11 PM12/8/04
to
On 8 Dec 2004 11:48:32 -0500, "Paul Seaton"
<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

unread,
Dec 8, 2004, 7:52:51 PM12/8/04
to

"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:42ler090jbeg261op...@4ax.com...

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

www.paulseaton.com/jfk


"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

unread,
Dec 8, 2004, 8:15:07 PM12/8/04
to

"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:42ler090jbeg261op...@4ax.com...

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

unread,
Dec 8, 2004, 8:32:56 PM12/8/04
to
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.

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

unread,
Dec 8, 2004, 8:32:09 PM12/8/04
to
On 8 Dec 2004 11:51:33 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
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

unread,
Dec 8, 2004, 9:19:42 PM12/8/04
to

"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.

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

unread,
Dec 8, 2004, 9:20:50 PM12/8/04
to

"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:205fr0dsqh305lnfn...@4ax.com...

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

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 8:14:47 AM12/9/04
to
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.

> 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

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 8:55:48 AM12/9/04
to

"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. !!

--
Paul Seaton

www.paulseaton.com/jfk


Paul Seaton

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 8:55:58 AM12/9/04
to

"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 ?? :-)

--
Paul Seaton

www.paulseaton.com/jfk

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 12:04:52 PM12/9/04
to
On 8 Dec 2004 14:52:11 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
<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

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 12:06:37 PM12/9/04
to
On 8 Dec 2004 19:52:51 -0500, "Paul Seaton"
<NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:

Good info for her. Will she heed it?

Barb :-)

Paul Seaton

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 12:36:32 PM12/9/04
to

"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qb1hr0dg2njgtj55s...@4ax.com...

Don't bet on it .. ;-)


>
> Barb :-)
>

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 1:08:11 PM12/9/04
to
On 8 Dec 2004 21:19:42 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
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

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 1:11:36 PM12/9/04
to
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.

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

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 1:12:39 PM12/9/04
to
On 9 Dec 2004 08:55:58 -0500, "Paul Seaton"
<NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:

Either that or they are tittering amongst themselves too polite to
point out ....

Barb :-)

Pamela McElwain-Brown

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 2:17:58 PM12/9/04
to
Paul is comfortable creating a strawman and then attempting to force
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

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 2:16:40 PM12/9/04
to
>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.

Steve

Pamela McElwain-Brown

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 2:16:00 PM12/9/04
to
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.

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

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 3:44:32 PM12/9/04
to

"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:h76hr091jnu6no3ca...@4ax.com...

> 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

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 3:32:38 PM12/9/04
to

"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.

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


audio.gif

Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 3:33:16 PM12/9/04
to

"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:d96hr0ppv0124e0e7...@4ax.com...
> On 9 Dec 2004 08:55:58 -0500, "Paul Seaton"
> The Ed Forum is not an arch LNT stronghold, as aaj is.

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

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 9:13:02 PM12/9/04
to
In article <h76hr091jnu6no3ca...@4ax.com>,
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

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 9:14:10 PM12/9/04
to
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.

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

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 9:15:57 PM12/9/04
to
In article <42ler090jbeg261op...@4ax.com>,
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

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 9:16:41 PM12/9/04
to
In article <r25hr0hso44hmjusp...@4ax.com>,
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

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 9:17:20 PM12/9/04
to
>The Ed Forum is not an arch LNT stronghold, as aaj is.
>
>Pamela
>

Obviously, not an arch knowledge stronghold either.

Doug

Caeruleo

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 9:23:52 PM12/9/04
to
In article <qsvbr098g469nnonp...@4ax.com>,
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

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 10:00:42 PM12/9/04
to
In article <ijucr057c7mr0935q...@4ax.com>,
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

unread,
Dec 10, 2004, 3:07:30 AM12/10/04
to
On 9 Dec 2004 12:36:32 -0500, "Paul Seaton"
<NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:

Smart man. :-) I've just read the diatribes on acjfk ..... very smart
man!

Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Barb :-)
>>
>
>

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,
Dec 10, 2004, 3:10:22 AM12/10/04
to
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.

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

unread,
Dec 10, 2004, 3:12:28 AM12/10/04
to

Amen.

Barb :-)

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,
Dec 10, 2004, 3:15:04 AM12/10/04
to

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

unread,
Dec 10, 2004, 3:24:16 AM12/10/04
to
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.

Barb :-)

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,
Dec 10, 2004, 3:27:46 AM12/10/04
to
On 9 Dec 2004 14:17:30 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
<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

unread,
Dec 10, 2004, 3:28:38 AM12/10/04
to

Touche'! Not when it comes to the sun, light and shadows anyway!

Barb :-)
>
>Doug

Paul Seaton

unread,
Dec 10, 2004, 10:31:58 AM12/10/04
to

"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....

--
Paul Seaton

www.paulseaton.com/jfk


Paul Seaton

unread,
Dec 10, 2004, 10:37:10 AM12/10/04