Reply to McAdams on my historical process and no more past Judyth issues

You don't get my historical process.  I accept that. 

I am not a part of the school of historians that you understand who push one agenda.  I come from a school where the historian can take the same group of facts and argue it from opposing positions.  Blame my brilliant first mentor in History at Bucknell, Dr. Robert Hilliard.  It is really all his fault.

I can argue the JFK assassination from the LN position and probably do a very good job of it.  I can argue that he was the only one firing the shots and I can tell you why he did it.  Of course, I would be doing your homework for you if I did.  And no, I don't *believe* that's what happened.  Nevertheless, that is part of the process I use. 

But going around in circles about past issues with Judyth is fruitless.  Why not just agree-to-disagree and move forward? 

Pamela Brown
http://inbroaddaylightjfk.blogspot.com/

My Pledge -- The JFK Campaign...reply on EF

I am wondering if what is needed is momentum from the entire CT community? If we had a PAC or something like that, with a single focus and a goal that could be described in a few succinct words? Not only do we want the case re-opened, we want all the remaining files released.

I have met Pres. Obama, as I volunteered for him in St. Paul, and feel comfortable about writing to him. I can also write our senators, Klobuchar and Frankin, and my congressman Eric Paulson. What if each of us did the same?

As Pres. Obama is hoping for re-election, this might be an excellent time to move forward with all things JFK. He has done nothing in this regard as yet on his own initiative; it is almost as though JFK did not do enough for civil rights for him to consider this a priority.

Reply to R H on aaj re CT v LNT mindset

> That's because they can never settle on one that actually works.

Or the truth is not simple.

>They
> have to keep searching for new conspiracy theories as the old ones get
> shot down.

As opposed to the LNTs who keep trying to hammer the WCR mantra even though it has been shot down?

>The search for truth is not a multiple choice excercise.

Let me guess -- it is letting an 'authority' tell you what is true?

> There is only one truth and you can accept it of reject it.

But what if the truth is surrounded by propaganda -- deliberate lies? 

>The truth
> was presented by the WC in 1964.

That is true only if you perceive it in a vacuum and let an 'authority' tell you what to think.

>If you want the truth, that's the
> only choice you have.

It is the WC defender mindset that there is no other choice.

That has nothing to do with the truth.

>If you want more choices, then yes, myths should
> be more appealing to you.

The WCR is the biggest myth and it seems to appeal to you. 

How could one disgruntled defector, known to intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic for years, using a cheap rifle and a newspaper to tell him the route destroy the most powerful man on earth wihout the help of one other soul? 

Pamela Brown
http://inbroaddaylightjfk.blogspot.com/

EF reply re reopening of Natalie Wood case plus JFK

It is about time the truth came out. Nonetheless, even though the boat captain is pretty much saying RW left Natalie to die by refusing to search for her or get help for hours, the LAPD is saying RW is not a suspect. I don't know if that is just a distinction of terminology or a hint that whatever comes out he will not be held responsible.

But as far as the JFK assassination is concerned, this is a very complicated situation surrounded by a massive amount of propaganda and lies. In fact, there is propaganda on both the LNT and CT sides -- we are supposed to *engage* our emotions and *believe* either the WCR or the lunatic fringe. What we are NOT supposed to do is keep an open mind and reason things through for ourselves.

As a result, anyone wanting to re-open the JFK case has to be able to wade through the lies and disinformation in order to get to the facts of the case. They have to do that while being continually blindsided by not only the media, but our own govt, which still at NARA suppresses valuable documents (the ones that have not been destroyed).

It is an enormous task. But then, isn't that what JFK challenged us to do in his Inaugural Address?

Is McAdams hopeless? ...tries in vain to again claim I 'don't have a process' :-0

 (Don't be fooled by those with 'advanced degrees'.  That has nothing to do with intelligence, or an ability to reason, as the following example shows.  In fact, it seems that those who go chasing after degrees might be trying to counterfeit genius.  Just my opinion.)

On Nov 14, 7:51 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2011 19:04:57 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 12, 6:05=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 12 Nov 2011 19:02:57 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 4, 10:09=A0pm, "Glenn Viklund" <glenn54.vikl...@dataphone.se>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> Why don't you tell as about your historical process. That would be ver=
> >y
> >> >> interesting.
>
> >> >I have already done that. =A0You just refuse to acknowledge it.
>
> >> No you haven't. You just talk "process" while bitching about people
> >> who disagree with you.
>
> >I do that in nearly every post.  You just don't like it.
>
> Of course I don't like you bitching at people who disagree with you,
> all the while refusing to discuss evidence.

I don't like you bitching at people who disagree with you, all the while refusing to discuss evidence.
>
> >Let me give you an example:
>
> >I say I prefer to keep an open mind.
>
> >You say "Pamela believes".
>
> >I say I prefer to weigh and evaluate information.
>
> >You say "Pamela believes"
>
> You just don't seem to understand that you are talking nonsense.

You just don't seem to understand that you are talking nonsense. 
>
> People who really weigh and evaluate information reach conclusions.
> They *believe* those conclusions.

Fallacy.  Appeal to authority. 
>
> Did you post that Judyth had been forced abroad by "attacks" *without*
> believing it?

I had sympathy for her situation, in part because of the hostile environment generated by you on this board.  Are you saying you have not carried on a 10-year extremely negative campaign against Judyth?  Should we not *believe* you intended it to have an effect on her life?
>
> I don't believe you did Pamela.  I think you believe what you post.
> Are you telling me you post things you *don't* believe?

Your opinion.  You are mistaken.  You are unable to acknowledge a process different than your belief-system. 

It seems in the world of poli-sci a 'belief-system' is mandatory.  Propaganda doesn't work very well without one, does it?  If people just keep an open mind as best they can and weigh and evaluate the information coming in, rhetorical devices intended to get them to *believe* one thing or *not believe* another don't have as much persuasive power, do they?
>
> >I say I do not believe nor disbelieve witnesses.  It is not part of my
> >process.
>
> Then why did you say that Judyth had been forced to leave the U.S. by
> "attacks?"
>
> You didn't believe that?  But you posted it?
>

I had sympathy for her plight at that time.  The hostile environment on aaj both to her and to me as well as Martin did nothing to dissuade me from considering the possibility that if Team McAdams' going at her with such vengeance might just be the tip of the iceberg.

Do you really believe she hired people to crash into her car?  Is the possibility that things were happening to her through the actions of other people so outlandish to you? 
>
>
> >> How many posts have you *ever* made that were not attack posts,
> >> Pamela?
>
> >Most of my posts correct the false statements that you and others
> >make.  How can that be interpreted as an 'attack'?
>
> Give me an example.

This one.  You claim I *believe* Judyth had to flee the US.  I provided an explanation of where I was at.  You will try to rewrite my reply and hurl the accusation back at me once again, won't you?  How many times have you done that in this go-around?  Thirty? 
>
> You don't correct false statements.

I do what I can.
>
> You believe them!
>
You see?  You've done it again.  I do not *believe* false statements. 
>
> >> >An historian is able to take the same group of facts and argue them
> >> >from two opposing positions. =A0Can you do that?
>
> >> I suppose there are *some* historians who could argue that the
> >> Holocaust never happened.
>
> >You 'suppose? .  Why do you believe you have credibility about
> >something you don't know?
>
> I know there are holocaust deniers.
>
> But it's not a virtue to read the historical data that way.  It's
> seriously derelict.
>
> As is believing Judyth.

I do not *believe* Judyth.  You are attacking me again with a false statement.
>
> >Will you next try to tell me how to play the flute even though you
> >don't know how to do that either?
>
> You may be expert on flute playing.  You are not expert in history.

I am published in the field of history with my essay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE.  I have had journal articles published on both sides of the Atlantic.  I have given two presentations at NID.  I have maintained a website on the JFK limo for 13 years at www.in-broad-daylight.com. 

I am doing my best to share with you the historical method that I use.  You refuse to acknowledge that I am doing so.  Then you take potshots at me.  That is your choice.  I believe you are wrong.  Not only am I an 'expert in history', but I believe my upcoming book will change forever the way people really think about the assassination.


>
> >> But that's not a virtue.
>
> >To be able to argue from opposing positions is essential to understanding
> >any historical event.
>
> >This is not an issue of 'virtue', it is part of the process.
>
> You have no process.

False again.

You know perfectly well that I have a process because you gripe and complain every time I discuss it.

Once again, here is a sketch of the historical process I am currently using:

Immerse yourself in a topic. Keep an open mind.
At some point, develop one or more hypotheses relative to the event (basically pro and con).
Weigh and evaluate evidence in reference to each hypothesis.
Take some time to evaluate information that falls through the cracks of either hypothesis.
Tweak and revise hypotheses.
Develop and share an opinion.
Continue to keep an open mind and be willing to add new information and adjust.  etc.

>
> You just bitch and whine at people who disbelieve Judyth.
>
I bitch and whine when people don't think for themselves, but are comfortable instead *believing* what an *expert* tells them.

> >Let me give you an example -- how do you know why you believe the
> >positions of the WCR unless you have also looked at them from the opposite
> >position?
>
> But I've read a ton of conspiracy books.

Really?  Which ones do you find valuable?  I don't recall your saying anything that doesn't equate to "all CTs lie".  Am I wrong?
>
> >Surely you don't believe that I, who do not believe the WCR, have not read
> >it, the H+E (in fact own the set as well as having them on CD), and have
> >read and own virtually every WC defender book on the assassination?
>
> BUT YOU HAVE REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE WC!

I have not seen any merit in the circular reasoning of the WCR.  I don't *believe* or *disbelieve* it per se.  I am not persuaded by it. 
>
> What happened to your "process" there?

Your strawman, not my process.
>
> Why don't you insist that you "neither believe or disbelieve" the WC?
>
I don't have a *belief* system regarding the assassination.  Yet I still keep an open mind.  Who knows, I could be wrong. 

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

Reply to JD on aaj re WC defenders

There are also a few WC defenders who are able to remain objective and do not for the most part tend to fall into using fallacies to bolster their position.  They also do not demonize the opponent.

If I were to think that there are WC defenders who really believe the WCR, these would be the ones.  From your posts, I consider you to be one of them.  I also have spoken with others, such as Ken Rahn, who are able to debate issues with respect for the differences in position. 

Nonetheless, the more rabid WC defenders who attack and demonize CTs irrationally using fallacy and propaganda are, ironically, those whom I think keep the need for an alternative to the WCR going strong.  They are of even more help to the CT movement than the CTs themselves.

Pamela Brown
http://inbroaddaylightjfk.blogspot.com/

Response to B on aaj re evidence

>  Right, thats why I think that Oswald killed Kennedy, because the CIA
> told me it was so, not the mountain of incriminating evidence against
> Oswald. Someday you might present an idea that makes sense and can be
> supported Pamela. It just looks like today is not that day.

The 'mountain of incriminating evidence' is propped up only by propaganda.  If one is able to ask questions about this 'evidence' it is possible to perceive that.

In fact, not much about the evidence is as the WCR tells us. 

For one thing, the body of JFK and the limo were both moved 1600 miles before having a proper exam. The autopsy of JFK was riddled with so much confusion and so many errors it might as well be called 'the little shop of horrors.' For another the limo was in the possession of the SS for over 12 hours after the assassination before they released it to the FBI for a forensic exam. 

The spiders' web of 'evidence' does not stand up to scrutiny.  But the WCR was written by clever lawyers, and we are not supposed to figure that out for ourselves.

Pamela Brown

Response to JD on aaj re those who believe WCR

Good question, Jean.  It is not easy.  Many will claim they believe the WCR but will resort to the various fallacies of logic in their arguments.  That alone is a giveaway that they realize they are coming from a weak position. 
. 
In other cases, when someone is unable to look at evidence objectively and demands that only the LHO-acted-alone theory is valid, it may be a case of their actually thinking they do believe it, yet being in denial, as they might be beginning to question what they have been told.

And of course with the WC defender elite, who, as educated people trained in propaganda techniques, do not believe the WCR, they will be dogging the posts of the dissidents with false statements, innuendo, and all the other tactics that are used to the end of keeping the little people in line.

Does all of this comes as a surprise to you?

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

Reply aaj RJ re anyone could have shot JFK post

We don't know that.  The SS could have been doing their job.

Was Hinkley running in intelligence circles for five years, setting off alarms as he traveled from the US to USSR and back, not to mention MC? 

Lee Oswald was hardly an unknown.  He was tracked.  Much of the documentation on him is still suppressed.  How could he just fall through the cracks of at least three intelligence agencies?  Doesn't make sense to me.

And, of course, we don't want to look at the WCR in a vacuum.  Everything about it was directed by CIA.  We were told what they wanted us to know. 

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

Time to Move On...

After investing seven years using my historical process to observe an extremely controversial person who claims they are a witness to Lee Harvey Oswald (findingjudyth.blogspot.com) it seems there has been sufficient evidence of its success to start to use it in areas of the assassination itself.

The process is basically this:

Read, absorb, everything on the topic.
Keep an open mind.
After you are immersed in the subject, choose two opposing hypotheses.
Leave wiggle room in the middle for possibilities that do not fall clearly into either extreme.
Develop parallel timelines of other people involved in the topic at the same time.
Weigh and evaluate what you find.
Draw conclusions, with the caveat that this is your best reasoning.
Allow others to decide for themselves what to think.