Reward!

A reward is being offered to help Craig McKee save face.  He has claimed that Lloyd England has frequently, clearly and unambiguously identified the 25-30 foot, long part of the light pole #1 as the pole that smashed in Lloyd’s windshield.

A $200 reward is offered to the first person who can produce links to this missing documentation.

Craig needs to document where this claim comes from – so help Craig “back-up” what he has been asserting for years, but never documented. Find where Lloyd says clearly and unambiguously that the 25-30 foot, long part of the light pole #1, shown in this photo, is the pole that smashed in Lloyd’s windshield.

Terms and Conditions to Claim the Reward

The following are the terms and conditions for claiming this reward:

  1. Link to currently (as of Sept 1, 2018) published videos
  2. At least two segments where Lloyd clearly and unambiguously describes the 25-30 foot long pole entering his windshield.
  3. Send a submittal with your contact information and the details of where the quotes can be found.
  4. A  submittal means you give permission to have your submittal posted on the this web-site as documentation of your diligent efforts.
  5. Only one reward prize will be granted.
  6. If no submittals reach the threshold of documenting where Lloyd clearly and unambiguously identifies the 25-30 foot, long part of the light pole #1 as the pole that smashed in Lloyd’s windshield, no reward will have been earned.

Send the Submission

Send the submission, with links, to specific parts of the documentation showing where  Lloyd frequently, clearly and unambiguously identified the 25-30 foot, long part of the light pole #1 as the pole that smashed in Lloyd’s windshield.  To cover the “frequent” assertion, at least two instances need to be included in the submission. If additional research locates additional quotes, send in the revised submission.

reward@dump-the-shadows.org


Selection of a winner

The recipient of the reward will be made public no earlier that November 1, 2018 to allow multiple researchers to perform comprehensive searchs of the historical archives related to Lloyd’s statements.


Payment

Payment will be made no earlier than November 1, 2018 – by Paypal, check, or USPS Money order.


The Fine Print

Examples of what doesn’t qualify as a “clear and unambiguous” statement are:

  1. When Lloyd England is looking at photos on a computer and he responds with only silence to the assertions by Craig Ranke that he was looking at the pole that speared his windshield.
  2. When Lloyd is driven by the location of Light Poles #1 and #2 and says, that it wasn’t “where it happened,” that statement isn’t clear and unambiguous.
  3.  The following section in“Lloyde England and His Taxi Cab – The Eye of the Storm” isn’t acceptable either because it is Aldo making the assertion and Lloyd doesn’t respond “clearly and unambiguously.”

    [at 2:30]
    Craig Ranke: … Well perhaps the [large 25-30 foot piece] pole itself isn’t what speared the windshield – and maybe it was the top smaller part, or an arm of the pole, that went through the windshield all the way to the back seat. Whereas nothing was sticking out over the hood at all [editors not: where did this assertion of measurements about what would stick out of the hood come from?].  So naturally this could be a fair consideration. But this assumption was made without ever having spoken with Lloyd England direct to find out about what he said. And when you analyzed all his previous accounts, it seemed to be he was, in fact, talking about the long part of the pole that actually speared the windshield of his cab.[at 4:21]
    Aldo: And to clarify, it was the large piece of the base of the pole.
    Lloyd: Yeah; the large piece was sticking out across the hood … the pole came on to the back seat. Anyone been sitting on the back seat on the right .. the pole would have gone right through them.

    Comparison of Lloyd England’s doodle showing the length of the pole vis-a-vis the taxi cab. The 10-12 foot slender pole (e.g., lower lamp support arm) which Craig Ranke dismisses as “the pole” actually has the correct dimensions to be the lower lamp support arm.