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