10 reasons

Off topic discourse and banter encouraged.
User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 16555
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:38 pm

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/10/17/house-stenographer-dragged-from-house-floor-during-shutdown-vote wrote:
House Stenographer Dragged From House Floor During Shutdown Vote
Dianne Reidy unleashed a tirade about God & Freemasons during the House vote on the budget deal
By Ethan Rosenberg, USNEWS, October 17, 2013
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
<<While America let out a collective sigh of relief when Congress managed to end the 16-day government shutdown Wednesday night, one House stenographer snapped during the vote and unleashed a bizarre rant about God and Freemasons.

The House of Representatives were in the middle of voting on a deal brokered by Senate leaders Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid Wednesday night when a House Stenographer, identified by Fox News as Dianne Reidy, approached the speaker's chair. "He [God] will not be mocked," Reidy said as the vote was still in progress. "The greatest deception here is this is not 'one nation under God.' It never was…The constitution would not have been written by Freemasons. They go against God. You cannot serve two masters. Praise be to God."

Audio and video footage show Reidy protesting security efforts to remove her from the House. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., who was presiding over the House, told Fox News that Reidy approached the podium beneath her and asked if the microphones were on. "I said that I didn't know. I assumed that perhaps I was chatting too much to the helpful parliamentarians around me" she told Fox News. "I hammered to get control and hush her up. She said something about the devil. It was sudden, confusing and heartbreaking. She is normally a gentle soul."

Reidy was later interviewed by Capitol Police and taken to a local hospital for a mental evaluation, CNN reported.>>
Art (normally a gentle soul) Neuendorffer

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 14682
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Chris Peterson » Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:40 pm

neufer wrote:
http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/10/17/house-stenographer-dragged-from-house-floor-during-shutdown-vote wrote:
House Stenographer Dragged From House Floor During Shutdown Vote
Dianne Reidy unleashed a tirade about God & Freemasons during the House vote on the budget deal
By Ethan Rosenberg, USNEWS, October 17, 2013
Who wouldn't go mad sitting in the House day after day, writing down everything said...
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Beyond » Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:56 pm

:yes:
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 9012
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: 10 reasons

Post by geckzilla » Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:59 pm

Is that how Art got the way he is now? Is the NOAA background an elaborate coverup?
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 16555
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:31 pm

geckzilla wrote:
Is that how Art got the way he is now? Is the NOAA background an elaborate coverup?
Are you suggesting that I sit in the house day after day, reposting EVERything said on Wikipedia?
  • Ridiculous :!:
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Beyond » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:18 pm

neufer wrote:
geckzilla wrote:
Is that how Art got the way he is now? Is the NOAA background an elaborate coverup?
Are you suggesting that I sit in the house day after day, reposting EVERything said on Wikipedia?
  • Ridiculous :!:
Ridiculous :!: You say...
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 16555
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Tentanda via rerum cognoscere causas

Post by neufer » Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:47 pm

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/theatre-and-performance/amid-controversy-the-debate-over-who-wrote-shakespeare-comes-to-toronto/article14889619/?cmpid=rss1 wrote:
Amid controversy, two Canadian universities financially back debate over Shakespeare's 'true identity'
J. Kelly Nestruck, The Globe and Mail, Oct. 17 2013

York University Motto: Tentanda via (The way must be tried)
University of Guelph Motto: Rerum cognoscere causas (To learn the reasons of realities)

<<Two major Canadian universities are for the first time putting their names and money behind a conference being held by the two largest North American organizations devoted to proving that de Vere was Shakespeare. Shakespeare and the Living Theatre, organized by York University theatre professor and self-proclaimed “reasonable doubter” Don Rubin on behalf of the Shakespeare Oxford Society and the Shakespeare Fellowship, runs from Thursday to Saturday at the Metropolitan Hotel in downtown Toronto. York and the University of Guelph are supporting the conference to the tune of $4,000, with much of the cash going to help undergraduate students attend talks that will be given on de Vere’s purported bisexuality, the question of whether he had two different handwritings, and, in the words of one abstract, the “campaign to legitimize the Authorship Issue by April 23, 2016.”

For Oxfordians, the very involvement of York and Guelph (whose professor Sky Gilbert is also presenting a paper) is a significant step toward that goal. “It’s the first time that even one university, let alone two have actively participated by making money available for their students to attend,” says Roger Strittmatter, an outspoken Oxfordian who edits the movement’s journal, Brief Chronicles.

The man responsible for Edward de Vere’s breakthrough into Canadian academia is Don Rubin, who at York is teaching a fourth-year course called Shakespeare: The Authorship Question, for the second time this year. A former Toronto Star theatre critic who helped establish the university’s theatre program in the 1970s, Rubin has made several notable contributions to the study of Canadian theatre, having edited a textbook used across the country and having founded the journal Canadian Theatre Review.

Rubin, wounded, feels the refusal of English scholars to engage him runs contrary to the spirit of academic debate – and compares himself to Galileo, who was persecuted by the Catholic Church for defending Copernicus’s theory that the Earth revolves around the sun. He believes these Shakespeareans, like the church, will eventually come around. “I do believe that apologies will come [from] those who are hanging back with the apes, those who feel it’s okay to ridicule, those will feel it’s okay to say this is heresy,” he tells me.>>
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 9012
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: 10 reasons

Post by geckzilla » Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:58 pm

Move over, Pluto Planet Question.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
owlice
Guardian of the Codes
Posts: 8359
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:18 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 10 reasons

Post by owlice » Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:03 pm

It should be held in Roswell.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 16555
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Sun Oct 20, 2013 6:24 pm

owlice wrote:
It should be held in Roswell.
Where great things began:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Goddard_(scientist)#Roswell.2C_New_Mexico wrote: <<With new financial backing, Goddard eventually relocated to Roswell, New Mexico, in summer of 1930, where he worked with his team of technicians in near-isolation and relative secrecy for years. He had consulted a meteorologist as to the best area to do his work and Roswell seemed ideal. Here they would not endanger anyone, would not be bothered by the curious, and experienced a more moderate climate (which was also better for Goddard's health). The locals valued personal privacy, knew Goddard desired his, and when travelers asked where Goddard's facilities were located, they would likely be misdirected.
  • Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 2, Scene 1
LORD POLONIUS:By indirections find directions out:
  • So by my former lecture and advice,
    Shall you my son. You have me, have you not?

By September 1931, his rockets had the now familiar appearance of a smooth casing with tail-fins. He began experimenting with gyroscopic guidance, and made a flight test of such a system in April 1932. A gyroscope mounted on gimbals electrically controlled steering vanes in the exhaust, similar to the system used by the German V-2 over 10 years later. Though the rocket crashed after a short ascent, the guidance system had worked, and Goddard considered the test a success.

A temporary loss of funding, as a result of the depression, from the Guggenheims forced Goddard in spring of 1932 to return to Clark University until fall of 1934, when funding resumed. Upon his return to Roswell, he began work on his A series of rockets, 4 to 4.5 meters long, and powered by gasoline and liquid oxygen pressurized with nitrogen. The gyroscopic control system was housed in the middle of the rocket, between the propellant tanks.

The A-4 used a simpler pendulum system for guidance, as the gyroscopic system was being repaired. On March 8, 1935 it flew up to 1,000 feet, then turned into the wind and, Goddard reported, "roared in a powerful descent across the prairie, at close to, or at, the speed of sound." On March 28, 1935, the A-5 successfully flew vertically to an altitude of 1.46 kilometers using his gyroscopic guidance system. It then turned to a nearly horizontal path, flew 13,000 feet and achieved a maximum speed of 550 miles per hour. Goddard was elated because the guidance system kept the rocket on a vertical path so well.

In 1936–1939, Goddard began work on the K and L series rockets, which were much more massive and designed to reach very high altitude. The K series consisted of static bench tests of a more powerful engine, achieving a thrust of 624 pounds in February 1936. This work was plagued by trouble with engine burn-through. In 1923, Goddard had built a regeneratively cooled engine, which circulated liquid oxygen around the outside of the combustion chamber, but he deemed the idea too complicated. He then used a curtain cooling method, which involved spraying excess gasoline, which evaporated, around the inside wall of the combustion chamber, but this scheme did not work well, and the larger rockets failed. Returning to a smaller design, the L-13 reached an altitude of 2.7 kilometers, the highest of any of Goddard's rockets. Weight was reduced by using thin-walled fuel tanks wound with high-tensile-strength wire.

From 1940 to 1941, work was done on the P series of rockets, which used propellant turbopumps (also powered by gasoline and liquid oxygen). The lightweight pumps produced higher propellant pressures, permitting a more powerful engine (greater thrust) and and a lighter structure (lighter tanks and no pressurization tank), but two launches both ended in crashes after reaching an altitude of only a few hundred feet. The turbopumps worked well, however, and Goddard was pleased.

When Goddard mentioned the need for turbopumps, Harry Guggenheim suggested that he contact pump manufacturers to aid him. None were interested, as the cost of development of these miniature pumps was prohibitive. Goddard's team was therefore left on its own and from September 1938 to June 1940 designed and tested the small turbopumps and gas generators to operate the turbines. Esther later said that the pump tests were "the most trying and disheartening phase of the research."

Goddard was able to flight-test many of his rockets, but many resulted in what the uninitiated would call failures, usually resulting from engine malfunction or loss of control. Goddard did not consider them failures, however, because he felt that he always learned something from a test. Most of his work involved static tests, which are a standard procedure today, before a flight test.>>
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2690
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Nitpicker » Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:46 am

[flame]

Literary pseudo-history and revisionism. Why? Shakespeare by any other name would smell as sweet.

The comparison with Galileo is bordering on offensive. Galileo's ideas were demonstrated by clear observations of the world around him, in his lifetime, and he was arrested and suppressed for it. Oxfordians have ideas demonstrated by words written by others, about four hundred years ago, and no one is arresting them.

History is bunk. But who cares? There is money to be made and ego to feed.

[/flame]

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 9012
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: 10 reasons

Post by geckzilla » Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:07 am

Art cares a lot.

I don't know if I said it earlier in the thread but the authorship question sounds just like any other 9/11 Truther or Moon Hoaxer conspiracy with the exception that while I can go through point by point and easily refute them, I had a much more difficult time with the Shakespeare thing. They might have something here but what makes me hesitant about it is that I have a hard time finding anyone presenting middle ground on the matter. It's either someone who is completely unwilling to even let it be a question or someone so obsessed with the subject that they present the information in such a way that it seems to lack objectivity.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2690
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Nitpicker » Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:22 am

My point was only that the time for achieving any certainty on this matter has long since passed. It is too late. Even if the tide of popular opinion ultimately flows towards the Oxfordians, it will not necessarily make it true.

Q: What's the difference between a religion and a cult?
A: About a hundred years.

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 9012
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: 10 reasons

Post by geckzilla » Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:47 am

Sure, certainty on any identity is most likely lost, but we often have to deal with degrees of certainty. If there is a reasonable degree of certainty that Shakespeare wasn't who the literature books teach then it's worth investigating. But yeah, if there isn't any evidence for it then there isn't any evidence for it.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2690
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Nitpicker » Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:10 am

geckzilla wrote:Sure, certainty on any identity is most likely lost, but we often have to deal with degrees of certainty. If there is a reasonable degree of certainty that Shakespeare wasn't who the literature books teach then it's worth investigating. But yeah, if there isn't any evidence for it then there isn't any evidence for it.
I accept the uncertainty over the identity of the author of the works commonly attributed to Shakespeare. We have to accept that there are some things we will never know for sure. (There, I've gone and presented middle ground on the matter.)

But I recoil from so strong an opinion as the Oxfordians', regarding that which is for now and evermore uncertain. It is akin to an ad-hominem attack post-mortem, with questionable motives. I also feel the focus would be better on the works themselves and their universal representation of what it means to be human.

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Beyond » Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:51 am

Nitpicker wrote:I also feel the focus would be better on the works themselves and their universal representation of what it means to be human.
What it means to be human :?: That's easy. Shakespeare said that we (humans) were but actors on a stage playing our parts.
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2690
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Nitpicker » Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:11 am

Beyond wrote:Shakespeare said that we (humans) were but actors on a stage playing our parts.
Yes, but that may not have been Shakespeare's own work :lol2: ... "Ultimately the words derive from quod fere totus mundus exerceat histrionem (because almost the whole world are actors) attributed to Petronius, a phrase which had wide circulation in England at the time".

Wot a larf!

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Beyond » Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:20 am

Nitpicker wrote:
Beyond wrote:Shakespeare said that we (humans) were but actors on a stage playing our parts.
Yes, but that may not have been Shakespeare's own work :lol2: ... "Ultimately the words derive from quod fere totus mundus exerceat histrionem (because almost the whole world are actors) attributed to Petronius, a phrase which had wide circulation in England at the time".

Wot a larf!
Almost the whole world are actors :?: :?: Who, praytell, is shirking their duty :?:
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2690
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Nitpicker » Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:44 am

Beyond wrote:Almost the whole world are actors :?: :?: Who, praytell, is shirking their duty :?:
Some work behind the scenes.

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Beyond » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:06 am

Nitpicker wrote:
Beyond wrote:Almost the whole world are actors :?: :?: Who, praytell, is shirking their duty :?:
Some work behind the scenes.
Then they are acting out the parts of stage-hands and such, are they not :?:
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2690
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Nitpicker » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:19 am

Beyond wrote:Then they are acting out the parts of stage-hands and such, are they not :?:
Or maybe we're over-thinking it.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 16555
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:04 am

geckzilla wrote:
Art cares a lot.
It is a great comfort, to my way of thinking, that so little is known concerning the poet. The life of Shakespeare is a fine mystery and I tremble every day lest something turn up.” — Charles Dickens
geckzilla wrote:
I don't know if I said it earlier in the thread but the authorship question sounds just like any other 9/11 Truther or Moon Hoaxer conspiracy with the exception that while I can go through point by point and easily refute them, I had a much more difficult time with the Shakespeare thing. They might have something here but what makes me hesitant about it is that I have a hard time finding anyone presenting middle ground on the matter. It's either someone who is completely unwilling to even let it be a question or someone so obsessed with the subject that they present the information in such a way that it seems to lack objectivity.
There are quite a lot of "middle grounders" at The Shakespeare Authorship Coalition :
https://doubtaboutwill.org/declaration_with_audio wrote:
Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare,

<<To Shakespeare lovers everywhere, as well as to those who are encountering him for the first time: know that a great mystery lies before you. How could William “Shakspere” of Stratford have been the author, William Shakespeare, and leave no definitive evidence of it that dates from his lifetime? And why is there an enormous gulf between the alleged author's life and the contents of his works?

In the annals of world literature, William Shakespeare is an icon of towering greatness. But who was he? The following are among the many outstanding writers, thinkers, actors, directors and statesmen of the past who have expressed doubt that Mr. “Shakspere” wrote the works of William Shakespeare:

Mark Twain
Henry James
Walt Whitman
Charles Dickens
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Orson Welles
Leslie Howard
Tyrone Guthrie
Charlie Chaplin
Sir John Gielgud
William James
Sigmund Freud
Clifton Fadiman
John Galsworthy
Mortimer J. Adler
Paul H. Nitze
Lord Palmerston
William Y. Elliott
Harry A. Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Present-day doubters include many more prominent individuals, numerous leading Shakespearean actors, and growing numbers of English professors. Brunel University in West London, and Concordia University in Portland, Oregon, now offer degree programs in authorship studies. Yet orthodox scholars claim that there is no room for doubt that Mr. Shakspere wrote the plays and poems traditionally attributed to him. Some say that it is not even an important question.

We, the undersigned, hereby declare our view that there is room for reasonable doubt about the identity of William Shakespeare, and that it is an important question for anyone seeking to understand the works, the formative literary culture in which they were produced, or the nature of literary creativity and genius.>>
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
owlice
Guardian of the Codes
Posts: 8359
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:18 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 10 reasons

Post by owlice » Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:44 am

There are present-day doubters of the Apollo moon landings. Orthodox scientists claim that there is no room for doubt that humans have visited the moon, and some say that it is not even an important question.

What have we here? http://www.liberty.edu/academics/arts-s ... /creation/

If "outstanding writers, thinkers, actors, directors and statesmen" don't believe in evolution... but wait. None of them are scientists. They aren't historians, either.

Reliance on fallacious arguments does not advance the position.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2690
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Nitpicker » Mon Oct 21, 2013 12:19 pm

Art, not that I'm a prominent person and not that being prominent is important here, but you may add me to the list of "middle grounders" with a reasonable doubt.

As stated earlier, I think it's too late for this mystery to ever be resolved with certainty, and as such I really do think that such modern attempts fall into the category of pseudo-history. You don't have to go back more than a few generations before historical "facts" become extremely unclear. Personally, I prefer to think that the commoner, William Shakespeare, was the author, as I appreciate the works more this way. I find the works to be reflective of humanity in a universal sense, more so than in an elitist sense. But that is merely my preference and my opinion. I understand you feel differently and passionately about this and I certainly think you have a superior knowledge of the authorship issue and the works as well. But I remain far more impressed with your superior knowledge of physics and astronomy. (And I'm ambivalent regarding your habit of reposting vast chunks of the interwebs which hold only tenuous connections to the topic at hand.)

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 16555
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:50 pm

[img3="Shakspere of Stratford's daughter (age 26!) makes her "pigtail" mark (at left).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Quiney"]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... re.svg.png[/img3]
owlice (her 'pigtail' mark) wrote:
What have we here?

http://www.liberty.edu/academics/arts-s ... /creation/

If "outstanding writers, thinkers, actors, directors and statesmen" don't believe in evolution...
We believe in evolution because there is
overwhelming circumstantial evidence for it.

However, there is absolutely NO literary historical "evidence" for evolution.
Rather literary historical "evidence" strongly favors the 6 day account in Genesis.

Stratfordian "scholars" ONLY accept literary historical "evidence"
while TOTALLY REJECTING circumstantial evidence.
  • That is neither scientific nor legal :!:
owlice (her 'pigtail' mark) wrote:
... but wait. None of them are scholars, scientists. They aren't historians, either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_McCullough wrote:
Image
(From the Foreword to the second edition of
The Mysterious William Shakespeare by Charlton Ogburn):

The strange, difficult, contradictory man who emerges as the real Shakespeare, Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, is not just plausible but fascinating and wholly believable. It is hard to imagine anyone who reads the book with an open mind ever seeing Shakespeare or his works in the same way again” - David McCullough.

<<David Gaub McCullough (born July 7, 1933) is an American author, narrator, historian, and lecturer. He is a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award and a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the United States' highest civilian award.

Born and raised in Pittsburgh, McCullough earned a degree in English literature from Yale University. His first book was The Johnstown Flood (1968); and he has since written eight more on such topics as Harry S Truman, John Adams, and the Brooklyn Bridge. McCullough has also narrated multiple documentaries, as well as the 2003 film Seabiscuit; and he hosted American Experience for twelve years. McCullough's two Pulitzer Prize-winning books, Truman and John Adams, have been adapted by HBO into a TV film and a mini-series, respectively. McCullough's most recent history, The Greater Journey (2011), is about Americans in Paris from the 1830s to the 1900s.>>
Art Neuendorffer