Proof of Motorcade Stopping?

[Pamela Brown]

Pamela,

I don't think it is appropriate for me to comment further about what transpired on that forum 15+ years ago beyond the following:

"Because the deceased (Principe, Dellarosa, Weldon) can no longer defend themselves they are easier targets for those who could not best them while they were still alive."

Having said that, let me reiterate how inappropriate it is for you to associate Fetzer with Nick. It is an abuse of logic.

I spoke with Nick on the phone in the summer of 1998 for the first time. Neither Nick or I had even met Fetzer (online or otherwise) as of then. Fetzer's first JFK book,"Assassination Science," was not published until the end of that year.

The fight here between Greg and Pamela serves the perps.

The perps killed Kennedy and got officers of the U.S. Government to pin the killing on Oswald.

Thanks for the reminder, Jon, that this forum is not about Greg or me, but JFK and what happened to him and Lee Oswald...

Nevertheless, in bringing forth anything that is actually new research, there are going to be challenges along the way. The publication at my first website of the Vaughn Ferguson memo that NARA had sent to me by mistake in a batch of limo documents (this was long before the RIF's of todays NARA requests) resulted in tumultuous events transpiring; https://ss100x.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/mb2b-exhibit-6/

I was attacked both on the group that became aaj and on the RDR forum with what felt like vicious intensity. I was apparently supposed to have been bullied into *believing* false witnesses. It seemed people crawled out of the woodwork to try to discredit my research and my witness, Vaughn Ferguson. I did not then know why and could not understand what was so controversial about it. Now I do, and the struggle has been worth the effort...

[Pamela Brown]

Jon, 'we' are not really looking for solutions 'we' may be just filling time while we wait to die.

'We' have served the perpetrators since 12:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963.

Well that attitude is just a tad 'barn sour', as one might say about a horse who is just bored and fed up. Just the same, we can learn from our research experiences of the last century to not *believe* or *disbelieve* witnesses, but simply weigh and evaluate objectively what they have to say. Than a pattern of evidence becomes evident that begins to have definition. I find that fascinating, even after all this time...:-)

[Pamela Brown]

Jon, 'we' are not really looking for solutions 'we' may be just filling time while we wait to die.

'We' have served the perpetrators since 12:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963.

Well that attitude is just a tad 'barn sour', as one might say about a horse who is just bored and fed up. Just the same, we can learn from our research experiences of the last century to not *believe* or *disbelieve* witnesses, but simply weigh and evaluate objectively what they have to say. Then a pattern of evidence becomes evident that begins to have definition. I find that fascinating, even after all this time...:-)

[Robert Mady]

Pamela, my point is that after 51 years of researching the assassination there is still arguments concerning virtually every aspect of the assassination, the research community is incapable of deciphering evidence and forming definitive conclusions. Academics appears to be purely efforts of intellectual gymnastics. Of course 'we' all enjoy the puzzle, unfortunately 'we' never seem to put enough pieces together to form a coherent logical and reasonable image.

Have I been soured, YES

The assassination community can't even weed out or ignore people like LANE, GRODEN or FETZER from our midst, we have allowed these people to direct, control and bully 'us' in a direction for research away from the truth and 'we' seem to gladly be attracted to these pundits like children following vendor in dinging ice cream truck.

We' can't decipher lies, contrary to understanding that lies have been proclaimed, we use them to form 'our' theories looking for novel ways false evidence can fit together to create wild scenarios like the 16 shot scenario being fired from 5 or 6 locations within DP. NUTZ.

[Robert Mady]

"It is easier to fool people

than to convince them that they have been fooled"

Mark Twain

[Greg Burnham]

The fight here between Greg and Pamela serves the perps.

The perps killed Kennedy and got officers of the U.S. Government to pin the killing on Oswald.

Jon,

First: The dynamic on display here has nothing to do with a "fight" between two members. I am not in a fight with Pamela or anyone else on the

forum.

Second: Nick's story was later picked up by Fetzer, but it was not fabricated by Fetzer. Therefore any disagreements that Pamela may have had with

Fetzer are irrelevant--even those dealing with Nick Prencipe--since Nick told his account prior to his introduction to Fetzer.

However, if we focus on certain facts, such as dates, for instance, it is easy to determine at least some of the truth. Because it is well documented

that Fetzer's first book on the subject, Assassination Science, was not even published until December of 1998, it is IMPOSSIBLE for her timeline as

stated to be accurate. It is impossible for Nick Prencipe to have been "influenced or duped" by a man that he had yet to meet! Indeed, Nick is not

mentioned in Assassination Science -- not even one time!

Pamela persists in Poisoning the Well as to the credibility of Nick's account by inaccurately associating him with Fetzer in the hope of persuading

those who don't know better that Nick's account was somehow unduly influenced by Fetzer. Yet Nick reported his recollections to me and others

before he ever interacted with Fetzer.

[PS: My account above is not intended to speak in any way (pro or con) to Fetzer's credibility as it is not germane.]

So why do I continue to make these points? Because Nick Prencipe was an eyewitness to these events. If Pamela's witness's account contradicts

Nick's account, then the researcher should be allowed to make his or her own judgment as to which witness is more credible based on the MERITS

of their character, as well as other elements properly utilized for determining plausibility. In this case, I am objecting to the blatant abuse of logic being

employed, such as, Guilt by Association (especially since no association existed to begin with!) and Poisoning the Well. Let the witness's account

speak for itself and acquire or lose credibility based on its own merit and not on fallacious argumentation. If Pamela has a beef with Fetzer, perhaps

that "fight" (to use your word) should remain between them rather than take place here over Nick's grave.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Pamela Brown]

GB said:

"Second: Nick's story was later picked up by Fetzer, but it was not fabricated by Fetzer. Therefore any disagreements that Pamela may have had with

Fetzer are irrelevant--even those dealing with Nick Prencipe--since Nick told his account prior to his introduction to Fetzer."

I disagree. I doubt that I would have had any involvement with Nick were it not for someone in the background making that happen. I think that person was Fetzer. If you know differently, please tell me who that person was.

I did not say anything about Nick's story being "fabricated by Fetzer". I did say that I think Fetzer was behind the fact that I was asked to interview Nick in the first place. I did not request to interview him. In addition, I was treated with hostility from one or two sources, though not all, from almost the first day I posted on that forum, so perhaps you can imagine my surprise at being offered the opportunity to interview Nick.

It may also have been that Nick had been communicating with other people on the RDR forum long before I interviewed him, so I also have no knowledge of how is story might have changed -- if at all -- prior to the time I interviewed him.

I do recall that subsequent to my interview with Nick, Weldon interviewed him, which is what we had all agreed upon, and Weldon apparently asked him to change his statement as to where he thought he saw a t&t hole in the windshield from the location he gave to me (lower left) to a nebulous 'I can't recall."

It was my impression, when I interviewed Nick, that he had been coached to some extent, but I have no knowledge of how that happened, or whether it was intentional or Nick just picked up on things already being discussed. Nick insisted on some things that were in complete conflict with the documented timeline of the limo -- such as saying that it was after speaking to Greer that he decided to go to the White House Garage. Greer arrived with AF1 with the body of JFK, and supposedly accompnied the body to Bethesda, but SS100X returned later and did not arrive at the White House Garage until 9 p.m. Nick also said that he just walked into the WHG and that nobody stopped him or asked for credentials. Nick said he was at the WHG regularly and knew everyone. I asked Nick who he saw that night, but he could not give me any names. Nick said the limo was unguarded and covered with a tarp. According to the SS, they pounced on SS100X the minute it arrived and scoured it for evidence, pulling out the bullet fragments that then went to Robert Frazier at the FBI Lab and a piece of skull that was taken to the autopsy. I asked Nick about the timeline on a number of occasions, and he stuck with his statements. I told him that I would put everything he said into my essay "SS100X" for Car Crash Culture as he had told me, but that there were a number of unanswered questions. He was not happy with that, but I felt that was the most fair thing I could do.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Pamela Brown

[Greg Burnham]

Pamela,

A few items worth noting: Nick became a member of the forum about 2 years before Fetzer joined. Fetzer had never heard of Nick Prencipe prior to his [Fetzer's] becoming a member,

which is where they were introduced. Fetzer didn't join until Jack White successfully convinced him to do so just as Murder in Dealey Plaza was being published (2000).

You should recall that I was directly responsible, from the start, for helping Rich to maintain compliance with forum policies. In that role [sgt-at-arms] it was necessary that I read literally

every single post, under every single topic, on the forum and assist Rich in many of the day-to-day maintenance matters. Therefore I am uniquely qualified to report on a variety of the

subjects related to that forum, its members, topics, and overall chronology, among others.

A few of the founding members of the forum, including me, keep an archive of every message that was ever posted there. Rich did not want these posts to ever be "cross posted" to other

forums without the express permission of all parties to the conversation. He also did not want the topics reopened for debate elsewhere as that does not allow a participant in the original

debate the opportunity to defend their position at a later time when they may not be aware that it is being attacked. In this case, death--the ultimate silencer--prevents most of the original

posters from participating here. So while I am able to "check my archives" I am not at liberty to reproduce the "threads and posts" that would substantiate my claims, and I am, of course,

fallible. However, what I have written about this is my very best recollection of what happened there.

Now as to some of the more substantive claims you are making let me address just two. I don't know how often you visited the WH Garage, Pamela. My father was with Harry Truman when

he received news of FDR's death and became President of the United States. My father knew Nick Prencipe by sight, was often an occupant in vehicles under escort by Nick of the DC Park

Police, and sometimes visited the garage himself. My father also knew many of the SS personnel assigned to PPD, including Bill Greer. My father also "couldn't give names" as divulging such

information is a form of "breaking the code" so to speak. So whether or not Nick "couldn't" or simply "wouldn't" give those names may never be known.

As for the Secret Service claiming that:

Pamela writ:

"They pounced on SS100X the minute it arrived and scoured it for evidence, pulling out the bullet fragments that then went to Robert Frazier at the FBI Lab and a piece of skull that was taken to the autopsy."

Did they also mention that they had rendered the crime scene [within the car] inadmissible while it was parked outside of Parkland Hospital? Did they also predict that they would destroy many

of their JFK assassination related files in defiance of the JFK Act? Did they also admit to having seriously broken several chains of custody involving key pieces of evidence that would have been

required in order to secure a conviction against the accused assassin? I think I've made my point. I'd sooner believe Nick Prencipe than the SS. We know they lied, deliberately, after having failed

to fulfill their most important job: Keep the President alive.

Pamela, we may come to different conclusions about this issue, find different witnesses to be more credible than others, and--who knows--you may be correct. However, please don't conflate

whatever bad blood that exists between you and Fetzer with some sort of sinister plan on his part to undermine your research through hijacking Nick Prencipe's eyewitness account. That is

going too far, IMO. The timeline doesn't fit at all. However, Fetzer may have inappropriately used Nick's information in a "less than kind fashion" in his subsequent debate with you. However, let's

not taint the eyewitness evidence due to the otherwise offensive utility for which it may have been later exploited.

[Pamela Brown]

GB said:

"However, please don't conflate

whatever bad blood that exists between you and Fetzer with some sort of sinister plan on his part to undermine your research through hijacking Nick Prencipe's eyewitness account."

I don't see how anyone with the slightest bit of empathy toward the manner in which I and my research were treated in the RDR forum can attempt to compare an unmasking of an unethical agenda (which, according to Mr. Burnham's own acknowledgement that he was involved in the decision-making at that forum, may have happened right under his nose) with "bad blood". I am quite certain Mr. Burnham did not intentionally try to re-open old wounds by continuing to make inaccurate statements about my involvement in the RDR forum. Nevertheless, the effect of such heightened rhetoric on his part has resulted in that unfortunate consequence.

Ironically, I am under no illusions that I am the only serious reseacher who was exploited and then *banned* from the RDR forum. I can only hope that my defining my experiences is a help to anyone who has been similarly impacted. This is not the kind of scenario I would wish on anyone. In hindsight, it was only my youthful naivete at sharing research online which resulted in my getting sandbagged in such a negative environment in the first place. I learned a hard lesson and have benefited from it.

I am not doing anything different in this forum than I do anyplace else. Ask anyone who knows me. I do my best to unmask every false agenda, regardless of where I find it. I also do what I can to unmask false witnesses. As a trained historian, it goes with my job, so to speak. It so happens that it appears Fetzer tried to insinuate three false witnesses into my research -- Whitaker, Prencipe and Judyth. That is not something I can change. These events happened over more than a 10-year period of time. Fetzer was behind all of them imo, unless I am informed otherwise.

Hopefully, anyone can decide for themselves what to think about any witness without badgering or bullying from either side. I did not find Nick's statements or his timeline credible. Nothing is going to change my position. One can only hope that it would finally become time to finally agree-to-disagree and move on.

In the meantime, due to the ongoing negativity and imo lack of value of adding further to this exchange of posts I feel I have no alternative but to add GB to my very short list of those whose posts I ignore for the time being. A time-out, so to speak...

Edited January 30, 2015 by Pamela Brown

[Jon G. Tidd]

If I'd been a JFK assassination plotter, I'd have wanted to ensure from the get-go that the available record relating to the assassination was filled with contradictions.

So that those delving into the assassination would fight among themselves either as to the facts or as to how facts were to be interpreted. That way I'd get to hide the truth in plain sight.

Question to Greg, Pamela, Larry, and other professional researchers: What contradictions, uncertainties, and implausibilities lead to the most disagreement among Warren deniers?

Edited January 29, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Thomas Graves]

If I'd been a JFK assassination plotter, I'd have wanted to ensure from the get-go that the available record relating to the assassination was filled with contradictions.

So that those delving into the assassination would fight among themselves either as to the facts or as to how facts were to be interpreted. That way I'd get to hide the truth in plain sight.

Question to Greg, Pamela, Larry, and other professional researchers: What contradictions, uncertainties, and implausibilities lead to the most disagreement among Warren deniers?

Not necessarily in order of importance:

1. Were there two Oswalds -- Lee and Harvey?

2. Was the Z-film substantially altered?

3. Was "Doorman" Oswald? Was "Prayer Man" Oswald?

4. Was Oswald a witting accomplice in the assassination?

5. Was Oswald ever an Intelligence agent?

6. What were the nature of JFK's wounds?

6. Where was Oswald at the time of the assassination?

7. ?

--Tommy

Edited January 30, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Larry Hancock]

It seems to me that the most heated and passionate arguments seem to center on questions of evidence and what can or cannot be trusted. That leads to unending disagreement

about the Zapruder film, all the other films, the medical evidence/reports from both Dallas and Bethesda, the specifics of wounds and the overall question idea of body alteration.

The next level includes other items of evidence, rifle/rifles, the bullets, a variety of issues pertaining to the limo, Oswald's possessions and questions about Oswalds

whereabouts and movements before and after the shooting.

To a large extent the decades of CT argument have focused on point/counterpoint over evidence and witness issues that would have come up in a court of law, in front of a jury...but never did.

Of course we also argue over conspiracy scenarios and suspects but that doesn't seem to get quite as heated....generally....

[Pamela Brown]

If I'd been a JFK assassination plotter, I'd have wanted to ensure from the get-go that the available record relating to the assassination was filled with contradictions.

So that those delving into the assassination would fight among themselves either as to the facts or as to how facts were to be interpreted. That way I'd get to hide the truth in plain sight.

Question to Greg, Pamela, Larry, and other professional researchers: What contradictions, uncertainties, and implausibilities lead to the most disagreement among Warren deniers?

Before beginning to reply to those questions, it seems to me the most important thing any researcher can do is to find a process that works for them and stick to it. The worst indignity of the WCR, imo, is not even the lies and the false conclusion, but the process that they used, which was not only false, but dangerous. The WC gathered a group of 'credible people' who then decided to tell the general public what to think about the assassination. Those who *believed* them were patriotic Americans -- those who did not were 'untrustworthy'. When the WCR first came out, those dissenters who gathered to meet with early researchers such as Mark Lane also had to contend with being labeled "Commies." The dissenters then became known as "CT"s with myriad 'loonie' theories. In other words, only the WC defenders were 'sane'. This horrible legacy has been imo the result of this false process.

As an alternative, let me suggest an historical process that has worked for me. It has, in fact, help me to untangle issues that otherwise seemed almost impossibly complex. In a nutshell, it is this:

1. Do not *believe* nor *disbelieve* anyone, or any *evidence*. Take a step back and simply read, listen, review, without having any preconceived impressions -- at least as much as is possible.

2. Determine how to weigh and evaluate what someone is saying based on comparing those things to objective information, such as documents and photographs.

3. Determine a timeline of the sequence of events that you are researching. A person or an object (such as the 4-ton limo) cannot be in two places at once.

4. Be wary of anyone or any group who attempts to tell you what to think or *believe* rather than providing you with information and allowing you to determine for yourself what has transpired.

5. Once you have placed the issue you are considering in an historical context, find things that are the opposite of what you think might be the case, and test them out. You are in the process of preparing a working hypothesis...

6. After you have weighed and evaluated both sides to any issue or person, then you are in a position to have determined for yourself what to think about it...

Just a suggestion...

Edited January 30, 2015 by Pamela Brown

[Jon G. Tidd]

Pamela,

Thanks. The reason I asked is that I want to try to determine what false paths, if any, plotters created for those who would try to probe into the assassination.

[Pamela Brown]

Pamela,

Thanks. The reason I asked is that I want to try to determine what false paths, if any, plotters created for those who would try to probe into the assassination.

You are welcome. From my standpoint, the two false paths are the myth of the WCR pushed by McAdams and and the CT lunatic fringe pushed by Fetzer. They are to me the most visible ends of the two poles. They will both encourage researchers to *believe* them. So, it is wise to take with a grain of salt -- immediately, if not sooner -- anything that comes from anyone having a connection to them, posting on their web pages, etc. I should amend that statement in light of the fact that Fetzer has indeed moved on to 9-11 and Judyth, for example, so those pushing his positions may be of the next generation, so to speak. I feel that McAdams and Fetzer symbolize the two extremes of the cover-up, as did Big Brother and Goldstein in 1984.

From my perspective, the cover-up has two prongs -- we saw that during the 50th, where valid CT research was ignored in favor of TV personalities generally trolling and interviewing both WC defenders and CTs yet always ending up with the WC defender position. A good example of that was Geraldo on FoxNews, in a very interesting program that ended with something like, "so Kennedy was killed by a silly little Communist after all?"

In the middle of all this is actual research from researchers simply doing their best to share information and, at times, paying a heavy price for it.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Pamela Brown