Pamela Brown

Varnell call this area he has marked in red as a "sideways ease". Varnell also claines this area is an "INDENTATION" All of which begs the question: How does the sunlight, coming from above, in front of and to the left, place this entire "indentation" (which also includes the area where the jacket collar should be see in direct sunlight) in shadow in a direct violation of the properties of light and shadow? The "gentle readers" must surely want to know. With all due respect, although one can control posting an article or not, how can one then claim the right to control the thread? Are you going to try to control the discussion on your piece on other forums too? This piece is mainly a rehash of 10-year-old information brought to the community by those other than yourself, me being one of them, who also worked very hard on their presentation. The windshield hole is discussed regularly on this forum and frequently digresses into other areas. Why take it personally?

If this forum has been under attack by outside forces wishing to cause such division that it ends up having to shut down, how should this be addressed? If it is known to have been under attack at one time, what is to say it is not under attack at all times? If there are posters here, for example, who have a tendency to try to divide and conquer and/or have compiled a track record elsewhere of working to cause division and/or working with the agendas of others, can that be defined or even suggested while staying within the rules? Or, would it cause more harm to try to address these issues than to simply try to keep a spirit of comeraderie and focus on the evidence?

With all due respect, almost nothing in this case is 'unimpeachable'. You are entitled to your opinion, as Pat is to his. Unimpeachable: 1. Difficult or impossible to impeach: 2. Beyond reproach; blameless: 3. Beyond doubt; unquestionable: Sorry, I'm not offering opinion, just plain hard fact. The laws of nature as they apply to light and shadow are truly unimpeachable. Thats the facts...pure and simple. Pat's mistaken "opinion" is proven wrong by the properties of light and shadow. That too is uninpeachable. Of course I have no problem if someone wants to try, in fact I encourage it. lets just hope they have a better grasp of light and shadow than the childish Clif Varnell. Want few other unimpeachable pieces of work...with all due respect of course ( which we all know means the exact opposite) www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm www.craig lamson.com.apollo.htm. Unimpeachable is not hard at all... Once again, in this situation where everything could have been simple, nothing is absolute. The best we can do is to weigh and evaluate what has come to light and decide for ourselves what to think -- not try an appeal to authority and make demands that others agree with us because 'we are right.' Everyone just goes around in circles. Oh wait, that is what has happened, isn't it?

With all due respect, almost nothing in this case is 'unimpeachable'. You are entitled to your opinion, as Pat is to his.

With all due respect, your 'study' is simply your opinion, to which you are entitled. In fact, this piece is devised as an appeal to authority, which is not persuasive logic. Knowing personally how much of a bully Fetzer is on this issue, I do appreciate your attempt to discredit the wacky 'spiral nebulae' theory; however, taking aim at witnesses is counterproductive, because they are for the most part just decent people who happened to be in the path of history and are communicating what they believe they saw. Here is my 'study' of the windshield-hole witnesses. It has been at my website for nearly 10 years. http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/hole1.html. Oh wait, IN BROAD DAYLIGHT is where much of this info came from in the first place, isn't it? And let's not forget to give credit to Anthony Marsh, whose excellent article debunked this theory over 10 years ago: http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/windshield.htm, not to mention his excellent article on the limo also from over 10 years ago: http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/bestwitn.htm

Barb forget her password, Andy? Glad to see you trying to juice the place up..... Barb experienced some technical problems posting and asked me for help - perhaps in time you might want to comment on the substance of the article? no need waiting -- balderdash comes to mind. Perhaps as the latest to carry Barb's water, you can comment on its content? Ironically, there seems to be a noblesse oblige attitude here where others kindly allow members to post for them, for whatever reason.

From my standpoint there is a connection between hitting rock bottom and taking the first step. Only when one can see and realize the chaos and insanity in their life can that happen. Sometimes circumstances need to become really intolerable in order for that to happen. My first husband never did take the first step. At one point he went into treatment because his employer insisted on it, and before long had memorized all the books in their library and was counseling not only the other patients but the counselors as well as to how to live their lives and deal with their problems. He spent nearly a month in treatment before everyone realized where he was really at and that they were powerless to help him. After that, even though he did stop drinking (and nearly died, was told if he ever took another drink not to bother calling 911 because he would be dead before the paramedics got there) he hated AA and all that it represented. As a result, he was frequently in a bad humour and struggling with dry drunk attacks. I don't believe he ever had much serenity. It was a tragic loss of someone who was gifted and too 'smart' for his own good.

Everyone has to hit bottom in their own way. Some are never able to take the first step. And anyone can be successfully taken off alcohol or drugs provided they are in the appropriate environment (usually a hospital) and are supervised during the process.

Well said, John. Alcoholism is a disease that is chronic, progressive and fatal. While all the questions are valuable in assessing one's interactions (or, dare I say it, relationship) with alcohol, the most telling to me seems to be that of abstinence. If one can stop all consumption for a period of 30 days while being more-or-less comfortable about it, they are probably not an alcoholic. At that point, any drinking issues per se (such as binging or just regularly tying-one-on) can be dealt with at that level. If one cannot go 30 days comfortably without alcohol, one is probably an alcoholic. There are two levels -- the first is more an emotional obsession (though that doesn't quite explain it) One is bereft of pleasure if they cannot drink. They are theoretically capable of stopping but are miserable when they do (and make others miserable -- dry drunk it is called). If one is at this level, run to AA and consider treatment. This was where I was 34 years ago tomorrow. I went to outpatient treatment for a month and it saved my life. The final stages of alcoholism are physical; the person cannot (and should not) stop drinking on their own because they are physically addicted. Anyone at this stage should (hit bottom first) run to a hospital and explain their circumstances and ask for help while they dry out and then go to AA. My first husband died of the ravages of this disease, complicated by the fact that he tried to stop drinking at the physical level on his own.

Good for you. Nobody is perfect. You are courageous to share your challenge. Today is a new day. That is all that any of us have.

Interesting ideas, especially considering the fact that Hitler killed himself on Walpurgisnicht, one of the most important days in witchcraft; almost as though he were hurling his legacy off into the future. Another curious thought is the development of the Fourth Reich in America, starting with our own OSS/CIA with Reinhold Gehlen (who should have been court-martialed) as one of its founders. And let us not forget the Nazi physicists who came over to the US with Werner Von Braun from Penemunde, all of whom were Nazis and contributed to the devastation of the war through the development of the V-1 and V-2 rockets, but instead almost at once gained high security clearance in our own govt and all the perks that went with it.

JFK himself made some curious statements about Hitler in his August 1, 1945 visit to Berchtesgaden and Eagles' Nest: After visiting these two places, you can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived. He had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him. He had in him the stuff of which legends are made. PRELUDE TO LEADERSHIP: The European Diary of John F. Kennedy, p. 74

THE WHITE HOUSE GARAGE AND A NEW WITNESS -- NICK PRENCIPE USPP Motorcycle Officer Nick Prencipe states that he drove to the White House Garage during the evening after having a conversation with the driver, Bill Greer, at the West Executive entrance to the White House, where Nick was stationed on November 22, 1963, in charge of assigning escorts to different groups of people during a very busy evening. It looked to Nick as if there were cocktail parties going on in the hulking Executive Office Building across the street: in fact, LBJ's people were gathering there, trying to decide if their meetings with the new president would take place there or at the White House. According to Nick, Greer was quite distressed that evening, "We really missed you guys today," he said, mentioning one of the Dallas Police Department Motorcycle Officers who wouldn't speed up. In this discussion, Greer stated that there were "shots coming from every direction," adding that "one of them came right through the windshield."[15] Existing documentation so far places Greer at Bethesda during the autopsy and embalming. There's a time conflict here that hasn't been resolved. In addition, no other documentation to date confirms that Greer discussed damage to the windshield with anyone, much less a shot coming through it. The Zapruder film does show Greer and Kellerman ducking after the fatal head shot, however, and Kellerman did reference a "flurry of shots" in his Warren Commission testimony (2H77), so there's a possibility that Nick has information that Greer didn't feel comfortable communicating to higher authorities. As a result, research is ongoing in this area. Nick states that he walked into the White House Garage that evening without being questioned, although he didn't recognize anyone there. He stated that he didn't see any army presence or any guards around the car. [16] According to the White House garage log -- kept by the Secret Service after the assassination, others were required to log in to see Seargeant Aleskowitz of the US Army from Fort Meyesrs, VA; also, per the SS duty roster, the automobiles were kept under guard until the afternoon of November 23, 1963. The limo was not in a bay along the side of the Garage but was sitting in the center. Nick says he is familiar with both SS-100-X and SS-679-X, the follow-up car, and is certain the car he was was the presidential limousine. [17] Documentation does show that SS-679-X was said to have been sequestered and guarded along with 100X, but there is virtually no detailed information about this mystery car, presenting another area for further research. The roof of the vehicle was up, and a tarp covered the windows. Nick states that he walked over and lifted the tarp. He noticed a hole in the windshield, low on the passenger side. He saw no damage near the rearview mirror. [18] Nick Prencipe, audiotaped interview with Pamela McElwain-Brown, March 2000. How shall we weigh this report? Will it be substantiated or contradicted by the statements of two men who had reason to be with SS-100-X that night -- the FBI agent who was in charge of the forensic exam and a witness from the Ford Motor Company? Analyzing the existing documentation of that evening, it appears that, if Nick's recollections are accurate, he was in the Garage prior to the exams that later took place on the vehicle around 9:00 p.m. pp.173-4 CAR CRASH CULTURE, Palgrave/MacMillan, 2001, Brottman, ed.

Nick's statements in CCC are from his March, 2000 interview with me. They contain his reference to a hole low on the passenger side of the windshield. When Weldon interviewd Nick some weeks later, Nick had conveniently 'forgotten' the location. Of course, by that time he had been coached by Weldon. Actually, we don't know whether or not Nick was coached even prior to his interview with me. If so, he messed up in providing a location. Nick's statement to me also added yet another location to those the other windshield witnesses had professed. This presented an additional complexity for Weldon, and so the fallout has been a 9-year agenda to try to twist Nick's words into saying something other than what he said to me, so that Weldon could move forward with his 'book'. Let's let everyone decide for themselves what to think about the Rich/ Weldon agenda; not to mention that Nick did not have any credentials to place him in the WHG on the evening of 11.22.63, so that whatever Weldon may be writing will likely end up being part of a new genre of fictonal 'non-fiction'. To be honest, nothing Weldon has come up with yet has been anything but a waste of time.

It seems that the Nazi regime was a good example of people caught up in a lie. In the book "People of the Lie", Scott Peck tries to present examples of what he calls an 'evil personality type.' Those who fall into this category are surrounded by lies and live in a fantasy world created by them. For those on the outside, the only symptoms seem to be strange statements that either don't seem to make sense or that we realize are outright lies. So it may have been with Speer, who managed to say some of the right things, but may not have been completely convincing. On the other hand, it may be that he was still in denial of the depth of evil he had been involved in. At any rate, the use of a word without emotional connotation seems to imply an acceptance of the system he was involved in.

Nice ramble, Bernice. If you wish to go around in circles for the next 45 years trying to find substance in the morass of undocumented claims and witnesses, as well as the rest of the wacky contrived conspiracy claims that have emanated from the Della Rosa group, that is your choice. But keep in mind that they have the WC defenders there to lead anyone back into the fold once who can't take the wierdness anymore. There is an alternative -- that's all I am saying. Nick's earlier and maybe less-sanitized statements are in CCC. They are available for anyone who is interested. I have no way of knowing what material you have posted from others has been forged or altered. But then, if you don't take responsibility for what you post, who will? Anyone? Noone? If you have been the target of the same kind of attack you might understand how distressing that can be. You don't need to worry about Weldon; he can make things appear out of thin air and be so persuasive that some who would rather not think for themselves will believe they are real. It is sadly ironic, though, that someone who was once a prosecutor has let witnesses take him for a ride.

puh-leeeeeze, "cult-like qualities", while you plan cult-like vacation holidays around a family photo-op and the museum limo? LMFAO. Your Speed Channel 60 minutes of fame is over -- time to find another subject, Pamela.... perhaps, a cult-like, Team Judyth following is more your speed (pardon the pun). What on earth are you talking about? The last time I was at Henry Ford was for the Discovery Channel ITTC last year. Just me and the producer Robert Erickson and, let's see, a camera man, and some staff from the Museum. No family. With all due respect David, if you were not a part of that Assassination Science group, became a threat for refusing to kowtow to the contrived conspiracy, were banished, and have been targeted for 9 years, you probably don't have many of the same experiences I did. If I am attempting to do some definition for those who may still be enmeshed in that bed of vipers, what is it to you?

With all due respect, Bernice, here we go again. You are posting for another person. Why does Weldon get a free pass? What is keeping Weldon from becoming a member and posting a bio and photo like all the rest of us and having to be directly accountable for what he says? And although I do appreciate his apology for the earlier ad hominem attack, you have again posted statements from him that contain an insinuation that is inappropriate and emails that I have no way of verifying are not forged or altered in some way. I object to your posting statements where Weldon is claiming to know what I do or do not recall. Weldon seems to have a lot of time on his hands to live in the past, not to mention a vivid imagination. I don't. In addition, I disagree with your thinking that emails are public domain. They are meant for those they were sent to and those not included in them have no right to post them. Have you seen anybody else post other peoples' emails here? In addition, I believe there are laws against doing so. You seem to be sincerely deluded about this. You are part of a group with cult-like qualities -- the Rich Della Rosa 'forum'. Your posting for others and deferring to them gives credence to that possibility. Their hording and/or developing emails from the past to try to use against me shows us how the 'banishment' process works. It seems that I was asked to interview Nick as part of some plan that Weldon and Rich have yet to disclose. Whatever it was, it backfired. That those statements were published in CCC is something they cannot accept, as evidenced by this 9-year vendetta. Nick may have been coached even prior to his interview with me; perhaps Weldon and Rich will share more of the behind-the-scenes manipulating with us.

Why would you post something from Weldon claiming that I am a 'waste'? How is that not to be construed as a second-hand ad hominem attack ? Just what do you hope to gain from that? What is wasteful are personal attacks that detract us from moving forward, wouldn't you agree? Weldon's feeble attempt to dismiss Frazier and Ferguson is hilarious and revealing. Robert Frazier was the FBI agent in charge of the exam in the WHG. Vaughn Ferguson is the FMC employee assigned to 100X who had been scheduled to go on the Texas trip but was instead sidelined at the last minute to order the cars for the Army-Navy game the following week-end. Both men have actual objective documentation connecting them to the limo. Ferguson stated that he was with the car day-and-night for four days after the assassination because LJB said he wanted to use it for the funeral. If Weldon chooses to discount their credentials, that is his choice. Unfortunately, it is done for a reason. It is the Weldon witness whose story has no documentation. It seems to have been cobbled together from things Ferguson said when he was at Dearborn playing golf. He was very talkative and had lots of friends. He also had pieces of bloody leather from the rear seat which he probably talked about as well. A piece of that was auctioned a few years ago. The Weldon/RDR brand of research seems to be to decry everything that doesn't work for their story and claim it to be forged or fraudulent. They then seem to like to weave a contrived version of conspiracy and wage warfare against anyone who gets in their way. In some cases, such as this with CCC, it appears they even try to contrive a situation designed to sandbag someone who presents a threat to them. Others from Dearborn have also come forth with similar early sightings of the limo at Dearborn, where it did go when Ferguson drove it there in December after the new carpeting had been installed. But those stories at least include the Experimental Garage, which is the only place the limo actually went to to be worked on when it was in Dearborn. "Hopefully that will be the last re this episode."

So you are saying Nick cc's Weldon? You are missing the point here. You were not included in the email. It was purportedly sent to me. You do not have MY permission to post it.f Weldon is attempting to claim I am 'pretending' not to know something? That is untrue and unhelpful. Why would he even make such a statement? And moreover, why would you post it? There seems to be en entire cottage industry around this CCC interview. It is becoming evident that I was being led down a primrose path right from the start. You, Rich and Weldon seem to have all the answers as to why I was asked to interview Nick in the first place. Perhaps you would share them with us and perhaps even share some of your own emails --that is, ones actually sent to you -- to explain what has been going on for the last 9 years?

Dixie, With all due respect, these emails were supposedly sent to me and they were posted without my permission. Bernice was not a recipient of them. Neither was Weldon. That is the issue. Are you saying it is ethical on this forum to go around posting emails you are saying were sent to other people, just because you claim you have a copy of one? Who is being maligned here? I consider the posting not only a breach of research etiquette but a distressing invasion of privacy. There seems to be a level of disrespect here coming from Bernice, Rick and Weldon. Is that really what this forum is for?

Nick Prencipe's statements as used in the chapter "SS-100-X" from CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave/Macmillan 2001) THE WHITE HOUSE GARAGE AND A NEW WITNESS -- NICK PRENCIPE USPP Motorcycle Officer Nick Prencipe states that he drove to the White House Garage during the evening after having a conversation with the driver, Bill Greer, at the West Executive entrance to the White House, where Nick was stationed on November 22, 1963, in charge of assigning escorts to different groups of people during a very busy evening. It looked to Nick as if there were cocktail parties going on in the hulking Executive Office Building across the street: in fact, LBJ's people were gathering there, trying to decide if their meetings with the new president would take place there or at the White House. According to Nick, Greer was quite distressed that evening, "We really missed you guys today," he said, mentioning one of the Dallas Police Department Motorcycle Officers who wouldn't speed up. In this discussion, Greer stated that there were "shots coming from every direction," adding that "one of them came right through the windshield." Nick states that he walked into the White House Garage that evening without being questioned, although he didn't recognize anyone there. H e stated that he didn't see any army presence or any guards around the car. The limo was not in a bay along the side of the Garage but was sitting in the center. Nick says he is familiar with both SS-100-X and SS-679-X, the follow-up car, and is certain the car he was was the presidential limousine. The roof of the vehicle was up, and a tarp covered the windows. Nick states that he walked over and lifted the tarp. He noticed a hole in the windshield, low on the passenger side. He saw no damage near the rearview mirror. How shall we weigh this report? Will it be substantiated or contradicted by the statements of two men who had reason to be with SS-100-X that night -- the FBI agent who was in charge of the forensic exam and a witness from the Ford Motor Company? Analyzing the existing documentation of that evening, it appears that, if Nick's reco9llections are accurate, he was in the Garage prior to the exams that later took place on the vehicle around 9:00 p.m. pp. 174-5

Since Rick Della Rosa has re-posted an email purportedly sent to me on alt.assassination.jfk without my permission and revived this scenario I realized that I may not have expressed my concern at Bernice's having posted an email which was not sent to her on this forum. I have no way of even verifying if the email has been altered because my pc crashed around that time and I lost all my files. I consider her doing this unethical and unhelpful. In addition, as we can see from the fact that Bernice has this email in the first place (she got it from Rick) ,it has become evident that Rick has been behind the scenes of everything that happened involving my interview with Nick. This changes everything. Nick asked me to interview him; I didn't ask to interview him. I told him up front that I would be publishing what he said. I took him at his word and published a brief summary of what he had told me in the chapter "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE. I had no idea then that I was being led down a primrose path. Sadly, that now seems to have been the case.

Watch out, Pamela -- it's only a matter of time before Craig accuses you of stealing the strawberries... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qzz7K_E1w I'll probably have plenty of time to do that while I wait for him to try to construct a cogent argument. :-0