McAdams refuses to grab a clue re Marina's defection from the WCR party line

On Dec 26, 11:03 am, John McAdams wrote:
> On 26 Dec 2011 11:59:41 -0500, "jfk2...@gmail.com"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 25, 5:21 pm, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 25 Dec 2011 14:03:20 -0500, Raymond wrote:
>
> >> This one works.
>
> >>http://www.bettyconfidential.com/ar/ld/a/Marina_Oswald_Porter_Discuss...
>
> >> Any assertion made my Marina falls into one to two categories:
>
> >> 1.) witness testimony, based on what she saw, heard and personally
> >> experienced.
>
> >> 2.) opinions, based on what she has been told and read.
>
> >> Where (1.) is concerned, she has continued to affirm all the key
> >> testimony she gave to the Warren Commission.
>
> >Your opinion.  I think you are wrong.  Anything that does not support
> >"LHO acted alone" denies the WCR.
>
> You are being really *slow* getting this.

Wrong.  You are being really *slow* getting this.  Marina has recanted the thesis of the WCR.
>
> Marina has *consistently* insisted that Oswald shot at Walker, and
> told her he had.
>
Not relevant.

> She has *consistently* said that Oswald had a rifle that disappeared
> from the Paine garage on the day of the assassination.

Not relevant.  LHO was never seen with the M/C in Dallas.  He may not have known where it was.
>
> She has *consistently* said she took the backyard photos.

Not relevant.
>
> She has *consistently* said that Lee told her he had gone to Mexico
> City.
>
>
Not relevant.
>
> >> Where (2.) is concerned, her opinions simply don't matter.
>
> >Marina has said different things at different times.  How do we know when
> >she is lying?  How do we know when she is telling the truth?
>
> Go back and read what I wrote above.

I have.  Your opinion is still wrong.
>
> Changing your *opinion* does not mean you were lying when you had a
> different opinion.

Really?  Are you acknowledging that the WCR is simply *opinion*? 
>
> >Will you now apply the same 'logic' to Marina's statements that you did to
> >Judyth's?
>
> You are really *slow* getting this.

You are really *slow* getting this -- Marina has said different things at different times.  She has recanted the thesis of the WCR. 
>
> Go back and read what I wrote above until you understand it.
>
Go back and read what I wrote until you understand the implications of what I have said.
Had LHO been allowed to live to stand trial, Marina would not have been able to testify against him.
Marina was sequestered by the SS and threatened with deportation until she gave the WC what it wanted. 
When she read the 26 vols of H+E she changed her mind and recanted the thesis of the WCR.
The WCR has lost its star witness.  What validity does it have today?

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

McAdams refuses to address these substantive issues

1 -- McAdams will not discuss the fact that he uses an hypothesis in his JFK class at MU. He starts with the hypothesis that there *was* a conspiracy and then tries to take it apart.  But he does not take the opposite hypothesis, namely that LHO acted alone, and tear that apart.

2 -- McAdams refuses to discuss the use of hypothesis in the study of the JFK assassination on aaj.

3 -- McAdams refuses to discuss the use of historical process in the study of the JFK assassination.  He has attempted to attack the fact that I am a trained historian instead. 

4 -- McAdams refuses to discuss the implications of the Alvarez article confirming an anomaly consistent with an additional shot fired at app. Z285.

5 -- McAdams refuses to discuss the fact that the star WC witness, Marina Oswald, recanted.  The unavoidable consequence of this fact is that the WCR has been rendered invalid.  Marina Oswald lied to the WCR.  She was threatened with deportation if she did not give them what they wanted.  Nothing that she said can be used against LHO with any validity as she has since seen the error of her ways.  McAdams would rather have us going around in circles about Judyth than deal with this issue that is critical to the research community.

So many strawmen...another reply aaj (maybe this won't be rejected)

On Dec 7, 8:36 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> This post could be titled "Pamelaplaysthevictim."
>
> On 7 Dec 2011 21:19:16 -0500,PamelaBrown
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 6, 9:00=A0pm, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >> On 6 Dec 2011 19:08:34 -0500,PamelaBrown
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >For one, your posts are not moderated. =A0You may speak your mind, as
> >> >you have done here. =A0If I were to say anything along these lines about
> >> >you, my posts would be and have been rejected.
>
> >> Nope. I don't post anything that I would not approve for anyone else
> >> to post, and there is nothing in what I said that should have been
> >> flagged for moderation.
>
> >Really?  That is a case of the fox watching the henhouse.  My
> >statement stands.
>
> PoorvictimPamela!

What do you mean by that?
>
> She is attached to playing thevictim.

Au contraire. 
>
> She attacks people constantly, but then bitches that she doesn't have
> moderator privileges.(1)

False.  I speak about a slanted field.  What is wrong with that?
>
> Barb earned her status,Pamela.
>
On Team McAdams?
>
> >You act as though you can make a snap judgment and decide what others are
> >to think.  That is not effective.  Provide the information without
> >commentary and let everyone decide for themselves what to think.
>
> No,Pamela, you act as though nobody is allowed to come to any
> conclusion about Judyth until *you* decide they are allowed to.

False.  I don't care what you think about Judyth. 
>
> That's a lot of chutzpah on your part.
>
>
>
> >> ... and it has been the downfall of several, including
> >> you. She is smart, she is charming, she can pour it on. Not a good
> >> methodology, imo, but there are still people doing it and turning
> >> blind eyes to everything else as you did.
>
> >False.  I don't reach conclusions in the same way you do.  I am using
> >a process that works with Judyth and I believe it will work with
> >others as well.
>
> But it hasn't worked with Judyth.  You've been suckered by her.(3)

False.  I kept an open mind.
>
> And you can't admit that.(4)

False.  I had an agreement.  I used a process.
>
>
>
> >False.  I kept an open mind and learned to understand her.  It was a
> >valuable experience.  It must bug you because you just can't seem to
> >let me be.
>
> Barb could "let it be" if you would cease your attack posts.(5)
>
Since when is correcting false statements an 'attack post'?
>
> >> You called several of us liars and frauds and dishonest and rumour
> >> mongers and careless, etc. Constantly.
>
> >False.  Anything like that would be censored.  You can post whatever
> >you choose.  Not the rest of us.
>
> Poor, victimizedPamela!

Anyone can read the threads and decide for themselves.
>
> It's true we moderators have let her get away with a fair amount of
> stuff we should have rejected.(6)

False.  Everything about my posts is scrutinized. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >. You ran your
> >> own smear campaign on Judyth's behalf. That hasn't worked out very
> >> well for you,Pamela... as I would think you can see, especially now
> >> that you say you've seen the light about Judyth's story. So one has to
> >> wonder why you keep beating the same drum.I do not deny that there are
> >> some who said quite cruel things about Judyth over the years. I have
> >> focused on her story...her claims, and have said more than a few times
> >> that I feel sorry for her. I do not believe her story .... whether she
> >> believes it or not, I cannot say. There is a difference between
> >> attacking the claims one makes and attacking them as a person. You do
> >> not seem to grasp the difference.
>
> >There certainly is a difference between attacking the person and attacking
> >the claims and I sincerely hope you will focus on issues and not me. 
>
> ROFLMAO!!

Wouldn't that be a nice change?
>
> Pamelais constanting attacking people who don't believe Judyth.  She
> in fact won't address any issues about Judyth, since they virtually
> all show that Judyth is a fraud.(7)

False. Strawman.  I don't tell people what to think.  I ask that they think for themselves.
>
> >In
> >fact, I am starting to wonder if it is I you want to target now and not
> >Judyth?  I certainly hope I am mistaken.
>
> This fromPamela, who for a decide has been targeting people who don't
> believe Judyth.(8)

False.  I don't care what you think about Judyth.
>
> >I have done nothing to warrant such lengthy posts.  I have not claimed to
> >know LHO in NOLA in the summer of 1963.  I have not claimed to be a
> >witness in Dallas to the assassination.  I cannot imagine what there is to
> >focus on about me at all.
>
> Because you are constantly attacking people who don't believe Judyth.(9)

False.  I correct false statements. 
>
> If you don't want the focus on you, cease the attacks.(10)

False.  A reply correcting false statements is not an attack.
>
> > Negative rambling simply gives credence to the fact that the one posting
> >in such a manner is not happy with where they are at.  Anyone can see
> >that.
>
> It's you who were suckered.  It's you who were thrown under the bus by
> Judyth.(11)

False.  Strawman.  I kept an open mind. 
>
> Barb and I and virtually everybody else here were right about Judyth a
> decade ago.

Your opinion.  You are entitled.
>
> I think you are profoundly unhappy about your role, but you take it
> out in aggression directed at those of us who figured Judyth out while
> you were dilly-dallying.

Seems my process is enough of a problem for strawman to have to be tossed out right and left.  What better confirmation can I have that I am on the right track?
>
>
>
> >You have no idea of how many of my posts were rejected.  Your posts
> >are never rejected.  Apples and oranges.
>
> PoorPamela! 

Such empathy!
>
> >> >I want nothing to do with Team McAdams and their campaign against Judyth.
> >> >I have made that clear. =A0There is no solution in the Team McAdams camp.
> >> >I want to understand Judyth; Team McAdams wants to destroy her. Can you
> >> >perceive the difference?
>
> >> No. Because there is no "Team McAdams" ... that is your invention. I
>
> >Let's let the readers decide that.
>
> I suppose I should be flattered thatPamelathinks I have a "team."

There is a team.
>
> But in fact, we probably should reject posts where she implies there
> is some nefarious conspiracy against Judyth.

Anyone can read the threads for themself. 
>
> >> have no campaign against Judyth .... I have pursued verifying the
> >> claims she makes. That's research into her story. Can you perceive the
> >> difference? Anyone who finds Judyth's story lacking, for whatever
> >> reason, does not mean they are part of some team or some campaign.
> >> People with like interests and like conclusions communicate, comment
> >> on posts suportively, etc all the time. The issue of Judyth's story is
> >> no different. Why should it be?
>
> >You might want to check with McAdams.  He seems quite comfortable with the
> >campaign against Judyth and appears to think she deserved it.
>
> If "campaign" means vetting and check her story, she did.
>
> And you hated that!
>
> You had some emotional attachment to her.
>
> You could not *stand* that people didn't believe her.
>
> And you still can't.(12)

False. Strawmen.  I don't care what you think about Judyth.
>
> >But what is the objective of a propaganda smear campaign if there is no
> >election?  How do you measure success or failure?
>
> You are the one conducting the smear campaign,Pamela.(13)

False.  I correct false statements. 

Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com

AAJ Reject -- McAdams won't let me compare him to Posner re Mark Lane...

http://findingjudyth.blogspot.com/2011/12/aaj-reject-mcadams-wont-let-me-compare.html

HD reply on aaj

On Dec 4, 1:56 pm, HistorianDetective wrote:
> OnDec4, 9:17 am, timstter wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > OnDec4, 3:18 pm, Pamela Brown wrote:
>
> > >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18462&pid=23992...
>
> > Hi Pam,
>
> > Say, I bet ol' Judyth Vary BakerjustHATES McAdams.
>
> > Didn't she recently hold a birthday party in Toronto for Lee Harvey
> > Oswald?
>
> > Isn't her most strident advocate of late FULL Professor Jim Fetzer, he
> > of the *9/11 Scholars For Truth* fame?
>
> > Ever heard of that book A Confederacy Of Dunces, Pam?
>
> RE:
>
> > By his ENEMIES shall we know McAdams, Pamela!
>
> Good one, Tim!
>
> I've noticed Pamela has increased her vicious attacks, as of late.

False. 

Even If that were so, that would be inconsistent with the hypothesis I am testing, so please provide some details so that I can make corrections.
>
> Whatever happened to her "Let's Level the Playing Field"?

Do you mean I am not pretending that is likely here?
>
> Pam, is McAdams' book the reason?
>
Why would that be the reason? 

BTW, hasn't he written half a book?  Still waiting for the half where he starts with the hypothesis that LHO acted alone and takes that apart. :-)

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

Anyone a target of a Team McAdams smear campaign is not allowed to complain of censure abuses on aaj

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John McAdams <aajfk@panix.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: McAdams still just doesn't get it...
To: Pamela Brown <pamelajfk1@gmail.com>
Cc: Moderators -- Moderators Backup <jmcadams@datasync.com>, pfokes@rogers.com


All you are doing here is complaining about moderation.

.John



On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Pamela Brown wrote:

On Dec 7, 8:36 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:

This post could be titled "Pamela plays the victim."

On 7 Dec 2011 21:19:16 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Dec 6, 9:00=A0pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barb...@comcast.net> wrote:

On 6 Dec 2011 19:08:34 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
wrote:

For one, your posts are not moderated. =A0You may speak your mind, as
you have done here. =A0If I were to say anything along these lines about
you, my posts would be and have been rejected.

Nope. I don't post anything that I would not approve for anyone else
to post, and there is nothing in what I said that should have been
flagged for moderation.

Really?  That is a case of the fox watching the henhouse.  My
statement stands.

Poor victim Pamela!

She is attached to playing the victim.

Translation:  McAdams is a mod; Barb is an ex-mod.  They can post
anything they choose.  The rest of us are censured.  We are not
supposed to discern this.

She attacks people constantly, but then bitches that she doesn't have
moderator privileges.

My posts are censured.  Yours are not.  Barbs are not.

Barb earned her status, Pamela.

Barb can say whatever she chooses.  The rest of us cannot.

You act as though you can make a snap judgment and decide what others are
to think.  That is not effective.  Provide the information without
commentary and let everyone decide for themselves what to think.

No, Pamela, you act as though nobody is allowed to come to any
conclusion about Judyth until *you* decide they are allowed to.(1)

False.  Everyone should decide for themselves what to think.

That's a lot of chutzpah on your part.(2)

False attribution.  I don't care what anyone thinks about Judyth.

... and it has been the downfall of several, including
you. She is smart, she is charming, she can pour it on. Not a good
methodology, imo, but there are still people doing it and turning
blind eyes to everything else as you did.

False.  I don't reach conclusions in the same way you do.  I am using
a process that works with Judyth and I believe it will work with
others as well.

But it hasn't worked with Judyth.  You've been suckered by her.(3)

False.  I got to know her.  She demonstrated who she is to me.

And you can't admit that.(4)

False.  My experience was valuable. The process I developed works with
Judyth and it works with others.

False.  I kept an open mind and learned to understand her.  It was a
valuable experience.  It must bug you because you just can't seem to
let me be.

Barb could "let it be" if you would cease your attack posts.(5)

False. Asking to agree-to-disagree and focus on issues is a reply, not
an 'attack post'.

You called several of us liars and frauds and dishonest and rumour
mongers and careless, etc. Constantly.

False.  Anything like that would be censored.  You can post whatever
you choose.  Not the rest of us.

Poor, victimized Pamela!

Anyone whose posts are censured can become a victim in aaj to those
who can post freely.

It's true we moderators have let her get away with a fair amount of
stuff we should have rejected.(6)

False. Nothing got through.  My posts were rejected.  Only the mods
and ex-mod can speak freely.

What value can the repetition of false statements possibly have? Is
that some sort of tactic?

Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com

Tools of a Propagandist

There seem to be a number of different tricks in use on aaj by Team McAdams.  Here are some of them:

Repeating false statements -- long after they have been corrected, they will continue to repeat a series of false statements regarding the target's position on any issue.  The intent seems to be to create some sort of rut, where a casual reader of the threads will be fooled into thinking these are the target's actual positions.

Doublespeak -- they will be appearing to speak on one level while actually conveying ad homs.  The rhetoric will appear to be chatty and informative, but in fact, is negative and vicious.

Reversespeak -- Whatever underhanding trick they are trying to pull they will immediately blame on the target.  They do this repeatedly and attempt to instigate a dogpile effect by getting those who have been suckered into considering the propogandists 'credible' people to dive in with them to attack the target.  Reversespeak is also used to try to get themselves out of a mess, or when they are unmasked.

False attribution -- they will create an "argument" out of a false statement, using false logic, and then come to a false conclusion which they will claim to be "true".

Blame the victim -- they will claim that the victim deserves to be the target of a propaganda smear campaign, that the victim is really the accuser and they are, in fact, the victims.  This is done even if it is obvious to anyone with a reasoning mind that they are operating on a slanted field where the target has no voice and Team McAdams can say anything they want.

Vague threats and curses -- they will throw in odd statements that do not seem to have a connection to anything, but are nebulous and unnerving.  The point seems to be to frighten the target and to consider the possibility that they are (or are pretending they are) referencing a larger network than that which is visible on aaj, which has the ability to cause actual harm to the person. This strategy may even include trying to pinpoint the physical whereabouts of the target.  An example of this might be the outrage expressed by Team McAdams when JVB turned up in Sweden under the protection of the Swedish govt.  It may be that a propaganda smear campaign works best when focused on the dwelling place of the target.  If so, that would be highly unethical.  But then, so is a smear campaign.  Perhaps nothing should come as a surprise.

Hypothesis currently being tested on aaj...especially with McAdams and BJ

On Dec 3, 10:20 pm, John McAdams wrote:
> On 3 Dec 2011 00:15:45 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
>
> >Per the MU website, info on his course on the JFK assassination:
>
> >4191. The Logic of Social Inquiry: The Kennedy Assassination 3 sem. hrs.
> >The Kennedy Assassination. The question of who killed President John F.
> >Kennedy, and whether there was a conspiracy. The physical evidence;
> >eyewitness testimony; Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, and suspected
> >conspirators. The logic of social inquiry, and how we can approach
> >"conspiracy" as anhypothesisto be tested. Offered annually. Prereq: POSC
> >2201 or Jr. stndg.
>
> And your point is?
>
> I don't think you know what anhypothesisis, Pamela.

You may not want to know that I do.

An hypothesis I am currently testing is this: if you do your best to treat people fairly, will they then demonstrate to you who they really are.

Current assessment

Based on the level of vitriol in the replies of BJ and McAdams, it appears that I myself may be a target of their propaganda smear campaign.  I am not allowed to discuss this, as the rejected posts show.  I am not allowed to call attention to the fact that I am under attack, for they then ridicule my statements and claim I am playing the *victim* card. 

Every attempt to stay in the present, agree-to-disagree and move on is met with attack and ad homs. 

There may have been a mysterious *call to arms* in a post of BJ's, where she nonsensically rambles on about 'karma'.  Nobody seems to have responded, however. If this were to be true, then the ultimate objective of a propaganda smear campaign would be to literally destroy the person.  If so, it might clarify to some extent the process involved in the deaths of JFK, MM, LHO, Princess Di and even Mozart.  In all cases, there seemed to be a vortex of negativity surrounding the person prior to their death.  It seems as though a 'vortex of the evil eye' was created, a cattle call instigated, and all involved focused their ill intent on that person.  Could this be possible?

It is part of my hypothesis that a propaganda smear campaign only works when the attackers can get the target to *engage* on an emotional level.  If that does not happen, the negative energy created by the attackers might move in a different direction than to the target.  Is that possible?  We will see.

McAdams repeats false statements again...

On Dec 5, 8:04 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2011 09:01:30 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 4, 8:32=A0pm, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 4 Dec 2011 21:30:33 -0500, Pamela Brown
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Dec 4, 2:37=A0pm, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >> >> On 4 Dec 2011 14:56:42 -0500, Pamela Brown
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Hope your post is not representative of the LNT mindset, Tim.
>
> >> >> >BTW, how would you feel about anyone who conducted a ten-year smear
> >> >> >campaign against you?
>
> >> >> Well, I can only speak for my personal experience, of course .... but
> >> >> your personal campaign to smear anything and everything you thought
> >> >> you could throw at the wall about me was really stupid. And backfired
> >> >> not just on you, but on Judyth too, imo. Karma, and all that.
>
> >> >Isn't a smear campaign when you call someone a liar and a fraud? =A0When
> >> >would I ever be allowed to do that here? Your posts are not moderated;
> >> >mine are.
>
> >> It's not a "smear campaign" if they really are a liar and a fraud.
>
> >> And Judyth doesn't post here. =A0So she gets on protection. =A0Just like
> >> Arelen Specter gets no protection, and Gerald Posnter gets no
> >> protection, and anybody else who *doesn't* post here gets no
> >> protection.
>
> >At least you are not denying what happened or pretending you are the
> >victim.
>
> What happened is that some of us were willing to tell the truth, and
> you could not handle the truth.(1)

False.  You are entitled to your opinion. 
>
> So you bitched about every post questioning Judyth.  You  harassed and
> dogged every post questioning Judyth.(2)

False. I do what I can to correct the lies.
>
> And now she's kicked you to the curb.(3)

False.  I was sitting on the sidelines.  I could not be *kicked to the curb.*
>
> But instead of admitting you were wrong, you continue to be hostile to
> those of us who understood from the very beginning.
>
False.  I am trying to find common ground.

McAdams considers any reply of mine an *attack* on Barb

On Dec 7, 8:41 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2011 21:19:37 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 6, 11:25=A0am, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >> On 6 Dec 2011 09:45:55 -0500, Pamela Brown
> >> wrote:
>
> First, note that Pamela attacks Barb:
>
> >> >I am a bit disappointed that you seem to be taking a personal turn in
> >> >your posts with me at all. =A0I thought we were doing better last week.
> >> >Maybe moving in a new direction.
>
I am stating a fact.  How is doing that an "attack"?  Barb and I had been chatting about band a few weeks ago.  A congenial comraderie is my preference.  At the very least, we should be able to agree-to-disagree and move on, don't you think?

> Now Barb replies:
>
> >> Actually, I have hoped so many times, Pamela, but alas, it never seems
> >> to move forward. One of your posts seems to be moving a new direction,
> >> the next is back to the same old poop. I said what I think., what I
> >> see, what I experience. Just when I think there seems to be a real
> >> change, you go back to the personal smears. Tired of it, just a waste
> >> of time. All I can do is call them as I see them at the time. It can
> >> change, but do you really want it to, or is it just more game playing?
> >> It's difficult for anyone to tell.
>
> >Why another post complaining about me?  What can I possibly have done to
> >be worthy of such attention?
>
> Pamela plays the victim, when she attacked Barb first!(1)

False.  I stated the fact that Barb had used me as a topic. 
>
> >I hope we can start to move forward and focus on issues instead.  What do
> >you say?
>
> We have all tried, Pamela, and in return gotten attacked in your
> posts.(2)

False.  My preference is to discuss issues.  When will that begin?

>
> Really want to move on?  Don't post any more attacks on people who
> don't believe Judyth.(3)

False.  Stating a fact hardly constitutes an *attack*.  However, heightening rhetoric might, don't you think?
>
> If you do make more such posts, it's a clear sign you don't *want* to
> move on.(4)

False.  If I define the current scenario and request a change, I do want to move on.
>
> We'll keep pounding you as long as you keep attacking.
>
Translation:  any reply to you or Barb is an *attack*?

Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com

McAdams won't let you call a spade a spade on aaj

After conducting a decade-long propaganda smear campaign against Judyth Baker, evidenced by thousands of attack posts by McAdams and his Team, he refuses to allow this to be called what it is, and has rejected my post defining what it is. 

In additional irony, McAdams is an assoc prof at MU and teaches Poli Sci -- he teaches about propaganda tactics and how to use them.  He teaches his students about the different strategies and techniques.  But on aaj, no such discussion is permitted.

This lapse is almost as serious as his refusing to discuss an historical process using an hypothesis, even though this is what he claims to do in his JFK class.

It is hard to imagine a world where someone like McAdams could actually get away with pulling the wool over peoples' eyes in this manner. 

But then, we're dealing with someone who thinks they wrote the dictionary too. :-0

Testing an hypothesis -- Is the McAdams smear campaign intended only for Judyth or also for me?

Realizing that the steady grind of false replies to my posts by McAdams, who repeatedly refusies to acknowledge where I am at, then tries to reverse my positions, works to the advantage of the propagandist by developing an environment that encourages and indeed even incites dogpiling, I have made a polite exit from the threads where McAdams is attempting to churn up past issues on Judyth.

Doing so will generate a response.  Most likely, there will be continued false replies by McAdams, attempting to get me to *engage* in arguing on a slanted field.  This time, however, I will be testing out an hypothesis -- namely, that his attacks on me and on my education, not to mention my historical process, have far less to do with Judyth than they do with me.

But why?  What have I ever done that was worthy of a smear campaign?  I am not claiming to be a witness to LHO in NOLA in the summer of 1963.  I am not claiming to have been standing on Main Street on 11.22.63.  How could I possibly represent a threat?

If this hypothesis is true, I should begin to see some definition as to just what is going on in McAdams' mind as he makes hundreds more attack posts.  If it is false, perhaps I will gain some definition of just what McAdams thinks he is really after.

12-11-11
McAdams rejected a post of mine on 12-9 solely because it 'complained' about mod abuse.  This is telling.  Not only did the post define the dual standard on aaj where mod McAdams and ex-mod BJ can post anything they want whereas others are censured, but it numbered McAdams repeated false statements.  Which is the bigger issue?  Trying to keep BJ from being unmasked (too late) or trying to protect himself?

WCR and propagandists...post to the EF

To me, the WCR mindset speaks most of all to the education, or perversion of it, given to the citizens of the US.  Whereas once students were taught how to reason, now they are taught to let persons in authority do their thinking for them.  The WCR functions as an experiment designed to determined just how pliable the US citizens were.  The WCR is propped up by propaganda, with all of its nefarious rhetorical devices and tactics.  Anyone who wishes can see it at work on the McAdams board, alt.assassination.jfk, where he, an asst. prof of poli sci, attempts to manipulate the group through using propaganda tactics to tell them who is credible and who is to be dogpiled on.

Whenever anyone comes at you waving the WC mindset banner -- that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone--you should run.  Every TV show, every book that tries to do a redux of the WCR and prop it up once again with vitriolic propaganda and lies should raise a huge red flag, at the very least.

Those who want to believe the WCR seem to find it difficult to accept that we, the ordinary citizens, have been fed to the wolves.  We have been lied to and deceived.  But if, in fact, this is the case, it is better to start over in a new direction than pretend that we are safe.  Not even our universities are safe from propagandists such as McAdams.  Our children are not safe either. 

McAdams trying to force my timeline? 2 irrationality in the faux intelligentsia

On Nov 19, 2:22 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2011 14:37:33 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 9, 10:09=A0pm, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 9 Nov 2011 08:59:57 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On 11/8/2011 10:49 PM, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:22:42 -0600, John McAdams
> >> >> =A0wrote:
>
> >> >>> On 8 Nov 2011 09:08:51 -0500, Pamela Brown
> >> >>> wrote:
>
> >> >>>> Recently there was a discussion on aaj about Beverly Oliver. =A0I
> >> >>>> recalled sitting next to her at the Mary F. luncheon at NID in 2002.
> >> >>>> I had a number of things on my mind, so was not really paying
> >> >>>> attention to everything else that was going on. =A0While I was
> >> >>>> practicing for my performing at the luncheon a fire alarm went off i=
> >n
> >> >>>> the hotel, and I found myself bundling up my flute and my two poodle=
> >s
> >> >>>> and hightailing it down about twelve flights of stairs. =A0It was a
> >> >>>> false alarm, and after about an hour, everyone went back inside. =A0=
> >But
> >> >>>> by the time I sat down at the luncheon I was just trying to get myse=
> >lf
> >> >>>> grounded and focused for the movement from the Bach Sonata I would b=
> >e
> >> >>>> playing.
>
> >> >>>> I was honored to be seated next to Mary F. =A0She was to my right,
> >> >>>> Beverly Oliver to my left. =A0As Mary was settling in, pulling out h=
> >er
> >> >>>> napkin, smiling and chatting with the others at that end of the tabl=
> >e
> >> >>>> (I don't recall who sat across from me) someone mentioned a sentence
> >> >>>> that contained the words "Judyth Baker". =A0At once, Mary hissed, "W=
> >e
> >> >>>> will not talk about that woman." =A0Everything came to a standstill =
> >for
> >> >>>> a moment, and then conversation resumed. =A0I was not about to ask M=
> >ary
> >> >>>> for details. =A0At the time, I didn't have any idea of the events th=
> >at
> >> >>>> transpired between Judyth and Mary. =A0But now I do, and feel that
> >> >>>> bringing this forth may add just a bit of definition.
>
> >> >>> Here is a letter that Mary circulated to several people on December
> >> >>> 12, 2001.
>
> >> >>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ferrell.pdf
>
> >> >>> I don't think there is any doubt that Mary was deeply skeptical of
> >> >>> Judyth.
>
> >> >> Exactly right, John. "Charmed" is not a word anyone who knew Mary
> >> >> would use to describe the effect Judyth had on her. At all. Mary was
> >> >> first and foremost a researcher, and she knew how to play her cards
> >> >> close to her vest while she evaluated evidence. And people.
>
> >> >You are still operating with a double standard. You should have attacked
> >> >Mary as vigorously as you attacked Pamela and continue to attack Pamela.
> >> >Imagine, the temerity to listen to Judyth's story and evaluate the
> >> >evidence? She refused to join your lynch mob. Inexcusable.
>
> >> Mary had an open mind, Barb has an open mind, and I have an open mind.
>
> >No.  Mary had an open mind.
>
> But we were right, and you were wrong.

No.  Mary was right and you were wrong. 

Mary got to know Judyth.

Mary kept an open mind.

Mary did not conduct a propaganda campaign against Judyth.

>
> Does an open mind conduce to being right, or being wrong?

Only if you want to have depth to your position. 
>
>
>
> >> By 2001, all three of us had concluded that Judyth was a fraud, and
> >> all of us went on the record with that.
>
> >Good for you.  You did it in your own way.  You waged a propaganda
> >campaign against Judyth but you didn't bother to get to know her.  In my
> >book, you failed to do your homework.
>
> You mean to critique a witness one has to have a decades long personal
> relationship?

In Judyth's case, it was seven years.  My agreement was based on her having her book published.  That is how long that took. 
>
> Just reading and analyzing reams and reams of her writing won't do?

For a superficial view, you may be satisfied with that. 
>
> You got to know her, and believed her silly assertions.

Not so. I did have sympathy for her plight, in part due to the propaganda campaign against her at this board.  Judyth could hardly have manufactured the thousand or more negative posts, could she? 

 But Sydney White did.  She even claimed Judyth had been the victim of an assassination attempt. 
>
> You *believed* that "attacks" had forced her out of the country, and
> into asylum in Sweden.

I read the hostile posts on this board every day.  Judyth did not write them.  Team McAdams did.  Even she could not exaggerate the extent of the negativity on aaj.

Are you saying that was all just fun and games, and behind the scenes Team McAdams was schmoozing with Judyth while sipping glug?
>
> Your "process" failed.

My process evolved. 
>
> >This is why my blog is titled FINDING JUDYTH.
>
> >Why am I not allowed to follow my own process according to my own
> >timeline?
>
> Had you only done your own thing, your decade-long process would be no
> big deal.

That is how it should be.
>
> But you bitched, gripped at and harassed everybody who didn't believe
> her.

False.  I dared to complain about the libel. 

It seemed inappropriate and unprofessional to label Judyth a liar and a fraud when she had objective documentation placing her in proximity to LHO in NOLA in the summer of 1963. 
>
> >> To wait until 2011 to finally decide that Judyth is lying does not
> >> make one "open minded." It makes one REALLY SLOW to reach an obvious
> >> conclusion.

That is your position.  In my book, you didn't do your homework.  You didn't even get to know your adversary.  As a result, she apparently blindsided you in Sweden and Toronto.

Your understanding of Judyth is superficial.

Your lack of process failed you.

>
> >You have it all wrong.  I am using my process.  I have not yet written my
> >article.  Your demands are inappropriate.  All they show is that you are
> >having a tough time thinking outside of the box when it comes to Judyth.
>
> You are the one who believed her lies.  I (and Barb, and a bunch of
> other people) did not.

I kept an open mind.  I do my very best in that regard.  You don't like it.  It gives me an advantage.
>
> Maybe "outside the box" here just means refusal to draw the obvious
> conclusion.

"The obvious" conclusion is that you have to live with what you call failures in Sweden and Toronto.  That's why you can't stop complaining at me.  I took a different route.  You don't like it.
>
> >But you managed to give Sydney White a free pass.  She does believe
> >Judyth.  She didn't even give you the details you wanted, and you still
> >believe she is truthful.
>
> Why shouldn't I.

Isn't she just another vulnerable and demented person being brainwashed by Judyth?  Why are you bothering to treat her with respect? 
>
> She hasn't lied for a decade plus like Judyth?

She claimed Judyth was the victim of an assassination attempt.  Where do you think she got that idea? 
>
> I don't believe her crackpot *conclusions.*  But I believe her
> description of what happened.

That is very gentlemanly of you. 
>
> >Where do you think Sydney got the idea of an 'assassination attempt'? By
> >your logic, isn't she brainwashed by Judyth?  Wouldn't such a crazy idea
> >have to come from Judyth?
>
> Of course it did.  But did Judyth claim that at first (only to back
> away later)?  Or did White buy the "attacks on Judyth" nonsense, and
> see this as another one?

Did you ask her?
>
> Who knows?  It really doesn't matter.
>

Not unless Judyth tries to use this incident in another petition for asylum somewhere. 
>
>
> >> Open minded people will accept evidence as it becomes available.
>
> >Really?  Not one simply making demands on others?
>
> You refused for a decade to believe what was obvious.

I do not believe anyone who makes demands.  That should be obvious.
>
> That's not open minded.  You had some irrational need to believe
> Judyth.
>
You cannot claim that.  I neither *believed* nor *disbelieved* her then.  And I don't now.  I am sharing my experiences and opinions.  People can decide what to think for themselves.

> Should we credit you with an open mind if you studied the Holocaust
> for a decade, and *finally* at the end of the process decided it
> really happened?

If I had ended up coming face-to-face with Hitler and as a result he decided to surrender to the Allies, yes.

Your viewpoint is superficial and narrow.  You seem to have trouble dealing with something different.  Your choice.

My process works with Judyth, and it works with other issues as well.  The best of historians are able to learn from the past and thus help to create a better future.  Your antipathy has illustrated to me that my process is a threat to the current WC defender mindset, which is basically that of an appeal to authority.  If so, those who are able to use it will be able to reason their way around the next spate of new programs and books, all intended to shut down the CTs by proclaiming in one form or another yet one more redux of the WCR. 

>
> >> Closed minded people will reject evidence if it doesn't fit their
> >> preconceptions.
>
> >Quit making my point for me.
>
> You don't understand the point.

I do.  You don't.
>
> *You* are the one who got suckered by Judyth.

False.  I was not suckered by Judyth nor by your propaganda campaign against her.  Those who can keep an open mind can generally see both sides of the issue.  Your repeated negative posts confirm that I have succeeded and you don't like it.

Pamela Brown
findingjduyth.blogspot.com

Faux intelligensia

I tell all students a truth that took me a very long time to learn -- that in the world of academics, much is, unfortunately, reversed.  If the student becomes stuck in the regular curriculum with tired old profs, they will inevitably run into those who seemed determined to block their every move.  This may seem like an illusion -- why would someone I am paying to teach me refuse to allow me to have a voice?  Why would someone whom I am told to trust lead me astray?

I tell them this as well -- that you want to be so good that people in positions of 'authority' do try to block you.  You want to be so outstanding that they refuse to teach you.  They may even try to have you kicked out of school on false claims.  This happened to me once.  The prof claimed I must have plagiarized my papers, even though he could find a shred of evidence to support this claim, because 'nobody could be that smart.'

I tell them too, however, that if and when they find themselves in this sort of predicament, to step back, take a deep breath, and start looking for alternatives.  The most important concept is that you are, ultimately, your own teacher.  It is you who decide what you will absorb and what you will reject.  You may have a different learning style from a prof's teaching style; it may just be a bad fit.  You may push all the prof's buttons without even realizing it.  You may cause them to become outraged simply because you embody the youth and excitement about learning that they once had and have now lost.  You never know.

McAdams seems to be one of those teaching profs who has lost his way.  Anyone or anything that doesn't fit into his narrow round holes he ridicules and discards.  He may even start a propaganda smear campaign against them.  It seems to be a kneejerk reaction.  There seems to be no process at work at all, other than trying to make someone else look bad because he has decided they should.  In his case, he has all the weapons of propaganda warfare at his disposal, and uses them without conscience.  In fact, McAdams posts on aaj are perfect examples of teaching people how not to think, but how to dogpile on those they don't like; at his command, of course.  He seems to attract vulnerable people unsure of themselves and their education, who are willing to let an 'expert' such as he do their thinking for them.  

McAdams prefers poli-historians?

On Nov 14, 7:37 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2011 12:09:41 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 13, 9:45=A0pm, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 12 Nov 2011 23:08:45 -0500, Pamela Brown
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >So anything you try to confer on me that contains *Pamela believes* is
> >> >wrong.
>
> >> You claim to be an historian?
>
> >I am demonstrating that I am an historian.  You just don't like it. My
> >profs on both sides of the Atlantic, not to mention my father, would have
> >a few choice words for your taking potshots at my education.
>
> I very much doubt that, Pamela.

I have no doubt of it.  How about the profs who mentored my University Honors thesis?  How about those who elected me to PBK? 

Of course, I must admit there were a few who didn't like me.  Their general comment went something like this -- "Nobody could be that smart!"

>
>
>
> >> Historians have to sift through evidence and reach conclusions.
>
> >I have already stated than an historian can take the same evidence and
> >argue from at least two opposing positions.
>
> But a responsible historian will reach a conclusion when the evidence
> warrants.
>
"A responsible historian"?  To my understanding, you seem unaware of the responsibility of an historian.  You seem to have a very narrow perception of what is involved.  That is ok; but to demand that every historian fit into the mold you create is about as unrealistic as trying to rewrite the dictionary, don't you think?


> Refusing to reach a conclusion when the evidence warrants it is not
> good history.

Your opinion.  You are entitled.  I think it is short-sighted and unrealistic.

There are historians who tell people what to think.  I call them poly-historians. I have little doubt that your favorites are those who tell people to believe the WCR.
>
> >Some do 'reach conclusions'; others do not even state their thesis -- they
> >demonstrate it, allowing the reader to be persuaded to come to the
> >conclusion they prefer.  But I don't expect that you can understand that;
> >the framework of poli sci seems to be to do a hachet job on the evidence.
>
> You are making a silly ad hominem argument, Pamela.

Apologies -- I have no intention of speaking of you personally, but rather of the limitations of your field of expertise. 

It is my thinking that poli sci, which seems to be devoted to telling vulnerable people what to believe, can only limit one's perception of an historical process that encourages people to think for themselves.

Am I mistaken?
>
> I present tons of evidence her:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>
> If you refuse to accept it, that's your problem.

It is the job of an historian to persuade the reader, not make demands.

Any website that claims everyone but the WCR lied is bound to raise at least one huge red flag with me. 
>
>
>
> >> You just refuse to deal with the evidence.
>
> >The tactics you use only work to try to redefine the evidence.  Poli sci
> >seems to be a false study of history.  A rewriting of history according to
> >an agenda.
>
> I, and Barb and Glenn and Mary Ferrell and David Lifton figured out
> Judyth long ago.

Good for you. 
>
> You are been REALLY SLOW to figure her out.

I had to find out for myself.  In addition, I have gotten her to demonstrate to me and others what she is all about.  That is far more effective in my book than making guesses.
>
> You don't have a "process."  Your "process" is to avoid a process. 

You don't have a process.  You cannot accept that I do. 
>
> It's an emotional attachment to Judyth that has impeded your ability
> to evaluate evidence.
>
I disagree. 

I got to know her.  I treated her fairly.  You don't like that.

McAdams again refuses to acknowledge my historical process

On Nov 12, 6:05 pm, John McAdams wrote:
> On 12 Nov 2011 19:02:57 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
> >> Why don't you tell as about your historical process. That would be very
> >> interesting.
>
> >I have already done that.  You 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. 

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"

I say I do not believe nor disbelieve witnesses.  It is not part of my process.

You say "Pamela believes.  Pamela has no process".


>
> >> I've worked with process management for more than a decade
> >> and I could perhaps give you an idea or two, how about that Pamela? You've
> >> nothing to hide, have you?
>
> >Just what do you think you know about evaluating history? If you have so
> >much expertise, why does your posts attack people instead of define
> >issues?
>
> 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'? 
>
> >An historian is able to take the same group of facts and argue them
> >from two opposing positions.  Can 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? 

Will you next try to tell me how to play the flute even though you don't know how to do that either?

> 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.

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?

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?  I am, however, forced to exclude RH which I do own, but was unable to read, as it was lugubrious.

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

McAdams tries to debunk my credentials as an historian...LOL

> >So anything you try to confer on me that contains *Pamela believes* is
> >wrong.
>
> You claim to be an historian?

I am demonstrating that I am an historian.  You just don't like it.  My profs on both sides of the Atlantic, not to mention my father, would have a few choice words for your taking potshots at my education.  
>
> Historians have to sift through evidence and reach conclusions.

I have already stated than an historian can take the same evidence and argue from at least two opposing positions. 

Some do 'reach conclusions'; others do not even state their thesis -- they demonstrate it, allowing the reader to be persuaded to come to the conclusion they prefer.  But I don't expect that you can understand that; the framework of poli sci seems to be to do a hachet job on the evidence.
>
> You just refuse to deal with the evidence.
>
The tactics you use only work to try to redefine the evidence.  Poli sci seems to be a false study of history.  A rewriting of history according to an agenda. 

Not the same thing.

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

aaj and McAdams -- what to expect

If you choose to maintain a Lone Nut Theory (LNT) position when posting on aaj you will probably find that you receive little verbal 'pats' of approval from McAdams.  Others in his Team may welcome you and try to find out more about you.  This will be accompanied by a verbal equivalent of a 'warm fuzzy'.   Without realizing it, you will find yourself being drawn into their clique.  The side effect is that you may also be looking for their approval.  Should that happen, beware.  You have fallen into a trap.

If you choose to maintain a Conspiracy Theory (CT) stance, you will find very quickly that you are experiencing quite a different environment.  You may start to wonder if you have a voice at all, for the more salient the points you are making, the more you will be surprised to find your posts rewritten.  No, Team McAdams doesn't have the power to literally redo your posts.  They will, however, dog each of your posts with replies that make no sense, issue vague threats, and work, through the use of propaganda tactics (another post will discuss them) to return you back to where you were before.  You may find that you have a nagging sensation of being told you were not only 'wrong', but 'bad'.  This is the beginning of the McAdams Effect.

Reply to BJ re Toronto press lazy, inept or enabled?

>
> >They regurgistated the effusive stories without having done the most basic
> >of homework.
>
> That is PRECISELY what you and the rest of the ragtag Judyth team have
> done from the beginning! HILARIOUS .... though pathetic ... that you
> make that comment about anyone else at this late date!

That is your opinion.  You are mistaken. 
>
> > Were they just lazy, or did someone from Judyth's camp get to
> >them first?
>
> You do know and understand that this whole publicity tour to Toronto
> was arranged by Judyth's camp ... right?

I don't have any direct information as to how it was arranged.  I can surmise, as can you.  How do you know Fetzer was not involved?

>Who do you think asked for
> inquiries from press, set up interviews with press, etc? This was a
> book tour .... nicey-nicey interviews are not unexpected.

Pleez.  What planet are Canadians on if they can't grab a clue that someone is trying to present themselves as the Holy Grail of the JFK assassination?  Why didn't they google at least?  If you send out a press packet to a TV station or newspaper, don't you expect it to be vetted first? 

It is my understanding that Judyth's book was not published as non-fiction, but under some other category.  If the publisher was aware of this, how can they be let off the hook for trying to troll Judyth as a fait accompli?

>And what is
> presented is not necessarily what the reporters PERSONALLY believe, it
> is not expected to be a really an investigative situation!

If not, they sure missed the bigger story, didn't they?

>And one
> interview I heard DID have the reporter commenting on how there are
> those who do not believe Judyth, who say her claims are not
> corrborated ... at which point Judyth did her schtick and slid things
> away from that topic ... even making an appeal for new glasses.

And that is when they could have honed in and asked the tough questions, isn't it?
>
> What is this farce you have created like it McAdams' fault, or
> anyones, that they didn't stop this?

What 'farce' that I created?  By keeping an open mind?  If you demonize Judyth, she plays victim and gains new converts.  Even you realize that, I am sure. 

McAdams has a presence on the net with his website, his book is out, he has been campaigning against Judyth obsessively on aaj for over a decade. It would seem logical that if the press were to want to get an opposing viewpoint to Judyth, he would be among the first they would look to.  But only one did.

>Or that the press was inept for
> not investigating and turning it all into a circus in a short column
> or short minute or two of an on air interview. Geesh, lady, don't be
> so naive.

You managed to get an article into Judyth's hometown paper.  That was so unbalanced in the other direction that I complained.  I am surprised that this was not the reception Judyth had to deal with in Canada.  I would like to understand why.  And perhaps everyone can learn from this situation?  Even someone as sophisticated as you? :-0