Baker Book: N.O. Buses Desegregated in 1950's
jpsh...@my-deja.com
1963 she and
Lee Oswald would sit in the back seats of the public bus they rode
together in
solidarity with African-Americans who were allegedly required to sit
in the back.
In reality, the Louisiana laws mandating segregation in public
transportation had been
overturned by the federal courts half a decade earlier. See for
instance the following
descision of the US 5th circuit:
deLesseps S. MORRISON, Individually and as Mayor of
the City of New Orleans, Provosty A. Dayries,
Individually and as Superintendent of Police of the
City of New Orleans and New Orleans Public Service,
Inc., Appellants, v. Abraham L. DAVIS, Jr. and William
R. Adams, Appellees
No. 16886
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT
252 F.2d 102; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3658
February 19, 1958
COUNSEL: [**1]
Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen. of La., George M.
Ponder, 1st Asst. Atty. Gen., Alvin J. Liska, City
Atty. of New Orleans, Gibbons Burke, New Orleans, La.
(Joseph H. Hurndon, Ernest L. Salatich, Asst. City
Attys., New Orleans, La., William P. Schuler, Asst.
Atty. Gen., for State of Louisiana. A. J. Waechter,
Jr., Floyd W. Lewis, New Orleans, La., on the brief),
for New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
A. P. Tureaud, A. M. Trudeau, Jr., New Orleans, La.
(Earl J. Amedee, Israel M. Augustine, Jr., Louis
Berry, Robert F. Collins, Alvin Jones, Revius O.
Ortique, Jr., New Orleans, La., of counsel), for
appellee.
JUDGES: Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and TUTTLE and
JONES, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: PER CURIAM
OPINION: [*102]
This appeal from a final injunction following a
summary judgment for the plaintiffs declaring
unconstitutional all laws of the State of Louisiana
requiring segregation of the races on buses, street
cars, street railways or trolley buses, and enjoining
defendant officials and public service corporations
from enforcing such statutes is controlled in all
respects by Browder v. Gayle (the City of Montgomery
bus case), D.C., 142 F.Supp. 707, [**2] affirmed
without opinion by the Supreme Court in 352 U.S. 903,
77 S.Ct. 145, 1 L.Ed.2d 114.
[...]
The judgment is Affirmed.
<end of excerpts>
Fat...@aol.com
> On page 146 of her suppressed book, Judyth Baker writes that in
> 1963 she and
> Lee Oswald would sit in the back seats of the public bus they rode
> together in
> solidarity with African-Americans who were allegedly required to sit
> in the back.
> In reality, the Louisiana laws mandating segregation in public
> transportation had been
> overturned by the federal courts half a decade earlier. See for
> instance the following
> descision of the US 5th circuit:
Just because the law was passed doesn't mean it was practiced. I
graduated from a segregated high school in Texas in 1963 and the Brown
decision was in 1954. I don't know about Louisiana but I'm sure it was as
bad or worse than east Texas concerning segregation.
Bill Clarke
clarkw...@hotmail.com
Hi, Jerry.
Glad to see you're still active. Too bad Judith lost her marbles.
::Clark::
Dave Reitzes
Altered by the CIA.
Dave
jpsh...@my-deja.com
In New Orleans, even when the segregation law
was in effect, the line dividing the bus was movable
depending on circumstances, as Hugh Murray
mentions in the quotations below. So in 1963,
where would one have to sit to protest the overturned
law?
http://www.anthonyflood.com/murraycivilrightsno1960.htm
>From Journal of Ethnic Studies, 6:1, Spring 1978, 25-41.
The Struggle for Civil Rights in
New Orleans in 1960:
Reflections and Recollections
Hugh Murray
"[...] The buses and streetcars were cheap enough,
only 7¢ in those days, but they too were segregated.
On the metal bar at the back of each set of double
seats were two holes into which a movable wooden
plank with the lettering "For Colored Only" could
be inserted. Each aisle of the bus or streetcar
had its sign; Blacks sat behind it, Whites before
it. Going through different neighborhoods most
patrons might be either White or Black, so the
movable signs provided some flexibility concerning
seating arrangements on the vehicle. Usually there
was a certain politeness regarding the sign, so that
if Blacks were standing and a White was seated with
the sign at his back but empty seats before him, he
would be asked by a Black to move up a few rows, and
he would, so the Blacks would have additional rows of
seating room. This occurred for both races, and I
never saw any rudeness over the sign when I rode the
public transport daily during my junior high and early
senior high school years. The law in Montgomery, Alabama,
that a Black woman would have to relinquish her seat so
a White man could sit -- that would not have been the
case in New Orleans.
"Though the bulk of seats on a bus could therefore be
assigned to either race, a few seats at either ends of
the vehicle were exclusively for Whites or Blacks. Thus,
the last row of seats had no metal bar behind them in
which to place the sign, so the last row was reserved for
Blacks. Conversely, five seats at the front facing the
center aisle were for Whites. [...]"
Incidentally, Murray was questioned by the FBI after
the assassimation because he had one of Oswald's
FPCC leaflets
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1186456103....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
<clarkw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186446465.6...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Dave Reitzes
> Dave Reitzes--another example of "sarcasm masquerading as evidence."
>
> Martin
LOL.
Martin, if you had something resembling evidence that ANYTHING of
substance in Judyth's book were true, you'd eagerly post it. Contrary
to your hundreds of promises of the past, you have nothing, so you
sulk around here firing off wisecracks at anyone who dares to call
your bluff.
Time to consider a new hobby, Martin. Maybe you could look into that
alien autospy alleged by another blockbuster Shackelford witness.
Free the files!
Dave
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
Dave Reitzes
> She lost her short-term memory, not her marbles.
>
> Martin
You have a qualified diagnosis affirming your claim, Martin?
Hell, let's see that bad boy!
(Not in our lifetime.)
Dave
Martin Shackelford
display.
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1186905777....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
you continue to harp on the issue once more reveals that you are
essentially a propagandist.
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1186905461.3...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Rudy Lasparri
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The alien autopsy was a hoax, Dave. That's well-established. The fact that
> you continue to harp on the issue once more . . .
> Martin
You can say that about Judyth. You're her lead "harpist."
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> In fact, we do have a qualified diagnosis, Dave, but it's not for public
> display.
>
> Martin
Just another variation on Martin's usual theme:
The Top One Hundred Martin Shackelford Excuses
100. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but you'll have to
ask me again later. (December 25, 1998)
99. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but you should have
asked me sooner. (November 11, 2001)
98. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm sick of you
asking me. (March 31, 2002)
97. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm tired of
being hammered about it. (March 31, 2003)
96. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but your request is
all too familiar. (December 31, 2003)
95. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I find your
questions abusive. (July 14, 2004)
94. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but you assume I
owe you an explanation. How droll. (October 1, 2002)
93. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but it's not my
responsibility to supply you with information. (March 26, 2003)
92. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but the demand that
I start handing out chunks of documentation at your behest is just
bullshit. (October 3, 2000)
91. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims -- if I felt
obligated to provide you with any information. I don't. That simple
enough? (March 27, 2003)
90. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I've never
discussed the evidence, and have no intention of starting to do so
now. (June 23, 2006)
89. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but evidence for
many things is collective, rather than a matter of a single "smoking
gun," and you well know this. Do your own research. (June 23, 2006)
88. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but the government
is suppressing it. (July 2, 2004)
87. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but no one involved
wants details posted. I'll leave it at that. (February 16, 2005)
86. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but it's none of
your business. (July 1, 2006)
85. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I don't have it
handy. (March 31, 2002)
84. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but it would
require some digging. (April 15, 1999)
83. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but it would be
difficult. (December 25, 1998)
82. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I have a ton of
stuff and I'm not going to go through it all. (June 29, 2004)
81. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I don't
actually have it in my possession. (June 30, 2004)
80. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but the guy who
showed it to me no longer has it. (October 4, 1999)
79. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but, while I have
run across such information, it was some time ago, and I don't recall
the specifics. (May 6, 2003)
78. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but, while I am
aware of some, I am simply not sure of the details at present. (May 5,
2003)
77. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but this is
nonsense. You know that I have a hundred file folders full of stuff,
and that, unless I devote a day or so exclusively to the task, it's
not likely that I can produce your messages "right now." (July 19,
2004)
76. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but that would
require some research. I'll jump right to it. Yes, boss. (June 17,
2004)
75. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but there's no
emergency need to do so. (July 6, 2006)
74. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I have better
things to do. (April 17, 2003)
73. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but it's not high
on my list of priorities. (March 31, 2002)
72. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but it's not worth
my time. (March 25, 2002) Screw it. (June 1, 2007)
71. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but your theory
seems to be that any time someone raises a point that you question,
they are obligated to spend whatever time it takes to locate the
specific information for you. (May 6, 2003)
70. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but do you really
think I'm going to spend hours looking through file folders? It's just
not worth it. I'll let somebody else play your games. (July 23, 2004)
69. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but which looking
glass did you pass through to enter a fantasy realm in which I am
obligated to provide you with any information on anything? Not a
snowball's chance in hell. (March 27, 2003)
68. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I already
responded to the degree I could. (June 18, 2004)
67. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but anyone with
access to the evidence could do so just as easily. (November 11, 2001)
66. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but you could look
it up in books yourself. (October 3, 1999)
65. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but why not ask
somebody else? (June 17, 2004)
64. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but someone else
has seen it and it's not my fault he's declined to show it to you.
(November 19, 2003)
63. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I've already
shared it with a good many researchers; why should I share it with
you? (July 20, 2004)
62. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm pretty sure
someone else already has. (December 27, 2003)
61. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but they don't
concern a primary focus of my research. (October 19, 1999)
60. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I voluntarily
choose not to do so. (June 23, 2004)
59. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm not under
any obligation to do so. (November 9, 2001)
58. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but it's not my
responsibility. (April 8, 2003)
57. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I don't feel
any need to prove them to you. (June 26, 2004)
56. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but it's not my
problem. (June 19, 2004)
55. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I won't do it
just to satisfy your curiosity. (July 19, 2004)
54. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm not here to
run errands for you. (March 25, 2002)
53. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I don't care to
jump to your demands. (January 2, 2003)
52. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I don't have to
do something just because some LNer asks me to. (June 14, 2000)
51. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I don't owe you
a thing. Drop the ego trip. (July 2, 2004)
50. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but there's no
reason for me to do a lot of searching to satisfy your demands for
specific citations. No one else is interested, and it's a waste of my
time. (August 11, 2003)
49. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but why should I?
(August 10, 2003)
48. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I don't see
what further discussion with you would accomplish. So no thanks. I'll
save my breath. (January 21, 2004)
47. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I don't have
the names of any witnesses, nor would I be likely to subject them to
harassment from you. It's not that important to me to prove anything
to you, that I would inconvenience others. (June 7, 2004)
46. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but what makes you
think that my goal is to convert you? (June 18, 2004)
45. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but if you knew me,
you wouldn't make the error of doubting the things I say. (January 2,
2003)
44. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but you don't seem
to understand and there seems no point in trying to explain it to you.
(July 14, 2004)
43. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I find your
request to be tiresome. (August 10, 2003)
42. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but you clearly
have no interest in a genuine response. (March 20, 2002)
41. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, were your request
just a little more sincere. (February 19, 2002)
40. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I simply don't
TRUST you. (July 2, 2004)
39. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm distrustful
of your agenda. (April 9, 2003)
38. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I am suspicious
of your motives. (November 17, 2001)
37. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm distrustful
of what you'd do with it. (September 19, 2003)
36. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I have no
reason to assume you won't misuse anything you get your hands on.
(June 26, 2004)
35. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but you'd only use
it against me. (November 3, 2003)
34. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but the offer that
I put everything in your gentle hands can't be taken seriously by
anyone in their right mind. (June 28, 2004)
33. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but if you really
cared about the answer, you'd go out and find it yourself. (April 9,
2003)
32. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but a forum for
people interested in the JFK assassination is no place to properly lay
out the evidence. That should be obvious. (December 1, 2003)
31. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm not going
to vomit it all forth on your tawdry little newsgroup. (December 11,
2000)
30. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but no serious
researchers rely on this newsgroup for "information." (July 14, 2004)
29. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I wouldn't want
to put it out piecemeal. (June 18, 2004, et al)
28. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but while
liberating material wrongfully withheld by the government is one
thing, vomiting up evidence piecemeal before it can be presented in
context is quite another. It won't happen. (October 4, 2000)
27. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, if you only showed
more integrity in YOUR newsgroup posts. (December 31, 2002)
26. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but you need to
work on YOUR errors first. (November 11, 2001)
25. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, if YOU were just a
little more responsible. (March 17, 2002)
24. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but you know better
than to think I'd provide YOU with any detailed information. (July 9,
2003)
23. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but why would I
share it with YOU? Your credibility is at about minus 1000. (November
13, 2000)
22. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims . . . but not for
someone like YOU. (April 5, 2002)
21. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but why would
anyone provide YOU with information? (July 1, 2004)
20. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but this is your
third demand today for names of witnesses. Forget it. They don't
deserve you. (June 7, 2004)
19. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I CHALLENGE YOU
TO PRODUCE SOME EVIDENCE FIRST!! (October 3, 2000)
18. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but . . . what was
that Biblical quote about the mote in the eye? (May 15, 2003)
17. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I can't really
discuss it. (November 9, 2002)
16. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm not
presently at liberty to discuss it. (October 2, 1999)
15. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but it's a secret.
(June 28, 2000, et al)
14. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but it wouldn't be
very practical. (October 6, 2000)
13. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but it would place
human lives in peril. (Private e-mail, June 29, 2000)
12. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but you know I
can't do so as long as there is legal action involved. (June 27, 2006)
11. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but your request
that I do so is nothing but a personal attack. (April 10, 2003)
10. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, if your request
that I do so weren't so stupid. (July 24, 2000)
9. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but your demand is
meaningless. (June 25, 2004)
8. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but you wouldn't
believe me anyway. (April 10, 2003)
7. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but believe whatever
you want. I'd rather you did, at this point. (July 1, 2004)
6. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but I think I can
guarantee you right now that no one will ever provide you with
"satisfactory" explanations, from your standpoint. (July 13, 2004)
5. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but it is not always
wise to reveal what one knows. (July 4, 2004)
4. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but who could argue
with evidence like yours? You have spoken! (July 17, 2004)
3. I ALREADY DID cite evidence in support of my claims, but the
alt.assassination.jfk moderators are censoring me! (June 23, 2004)
2. I ALREADY DID cite evidence in support of my claims, but it
vanished into thin air! (November 15, 2001)
And the Number One Martin Shackelford Excuse . . .
1. I COULD cite evidence in support of my claims, but that would be
going back on my word. Integrity, don't you know. (August 17, 2003)
Dave \:^|
http://www.jfk-online.com/judythshack.html
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
Dave Reitzes
> In article <40Uvi.1783$3x....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
>
> > The alien autopsy was a hoax, Dave. That's well-established. The fact that
> > you continue to harp on the issue once more . . .
> > Martin
>
> You can say that about Judyth. You're her lead "harpist."
In addition to dodging the issue of his hopeless inability to substantiate
any of Judyth's fantasies, Martin's not being entirely forthcoming
(surprise, surprise) about the alien autopsy thing. You see, Martin
endorses the credibility of a convicted felon who claims to have worked
for the CIA, met personally with Osama Bin Laden, and witnessed an actual
alien autopsy.
Impossible, you say? Read on:
<QUOTE ON>----------------------------------
Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!
newsfeed-3001.bay.webtv.net!nntp-out.svc.us.xo.net!nntp1-
feeder.SJ.svc.us.xo.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!
sjc1.nntp.concentric.net!nntp-master.svc.us.xo.net
From: Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Judyth Baker, Dave Ferrie and Cancer Research: Back to
Reality
Date: 23 Sep 2004 03:47:54 EDT
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <citv3a$...@dispatch.concentric.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.238.152.91
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4)
Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
At the age of 12, a young science genius named Michael Riconosciuto was
building listening devices for the detective agency of Guy Banister in New
Orleans. As a teenager, he had his own laboratory, and was doing cancer
research, as Judyth Baker was also doing at the time in Florida. David
Ferrie later mentioned to her that they had been expecting a young cancer
researcher on the scene in May 1963, and assumed Judyth Baker was the
person they were expecting. It may have been Michael Riconosciuto instead,
and Judyth may have fallen into the situation by chance, showing up in New
Orleans two weeks before Michael did. At the time, she simply assumed that
Ochsner had mentioned her to them. This was brought to our attention
recently when a journalist shared with us her recent interview with
Riconosciuto. Already aware of his connection to Banister and to his
teenage cancer research, the reporter asked if Banister ever gave Michael
reading materials on the subject of cancer research--and was told yes, he
had. The reporter mentioned names including Judyth Baker and Judyth Vary.
Michael indicated that some of the cancer research materials he had been
shown by Banister were written by a Judyth Vary. Asked if he considered
Judyth to be genuine, he said he did. Later, Riconosciuto became an expert
in computer encryption. He was employed by the CIA-funded
Wackenhut-Cabazon Indian joint venture at another point, and CIA agent
Robert Booth Nichols testified that Riconosciuto was in close contact with
Bobby Inman, who served with both the NSA and CIA. He was one of the
architects of the "backdoor" in the PROMIS software purchased by the CIA
for distribution to foreign intelligence agencies, allowing the CIA access
to information from their systems. The Wackenhut-Cabazon organization was
also involved in biowarfare, according to a manuscript called "The Last
Circle" by Carol Seymour, which mentions it in passing, its primary focus
being a Kentucky paramilitary drug-dealing operation. In 1991, during the
first Bush administration, Riconosciuto was accused of being involved in
the construction of a methamphetamine lab, and sent to prison, where he
remains. In case that wasn't enough to quiet him, his wife was accused of
child neglect, and their children were removed, using the meth lab charge
as a basis.
Martin
<QUOTE OFF>---------------------------------
For anyone interested in evaluating the caliber of witness being produced
to support Judyth Baker by none other than our own Martin Shackelford,
what follows is just a little bit of information gleaned from a Google
search.
Read a bit about convicted drug dealer Michael Riconosciuto's dynamic CIA
career, his personal meeting with Osama Bin Laden, his knowledge of aliens
from outer space, his inside knowledge of deadly Satanist cults, his
insights into a worldwide power cabal called "The Octopus," etc., etc.,
etc.
http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-49.html
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------
Michael Riconosciuto
An example of [Harry V.] Martin's tendency to confuse unproven allegations
with established matters of fact can be found in Martin's treatment of
Michael Riconosciuto, a computer software technician who has submitted a
sworn affidavit in the Inslaw software piracy case. Riconosciuto has
claimed that he was threatened by a former staff member of the Justice
Department with criminal prosecution on an unrelated charge and with an
unfavorable result in a pending child custody dispute if he testified on
the Inslaw case. Riconosciuto has also claimed that he made a tape
recording of the telephoned threat, two copies of which were confiscated
when he was arrested. Although he has not produced it, he claims a third
copy exists, which is being held in a safe location. When Martin discusses
Riconosciuto, he begins with what appears to be a statement of uncontested
fact, "In February, Riconosciuto was called by a former Justice Department
official and warned against ooperating with an investigation into the case
by the House Judiciary Committee." In fact, while some of what
Riconosciuto has alleged can be verified, much cannot. Despite the
plethora of details Martin presents, the entire content of Martin's story
on Riconosciuto is composed of Riconosciuto's own unverified assertions or
other unproven allegations made in the early stages of a lawsuit.
Riconosciuto has also been championed as a source by the LaRouchians who
say they introduced Riconosciuto to Danny Casolaro, according to the
Village Voice article by Ridgeway and Vaughan. Anyone reading that article
carefully will get the idea that authors Ridgeway and Vaughan think that
some of the Riconosciuto/Casolaro allegations are unsubstantiated and
reflect undocumented conspiracy theories.
Jerry Uhrhammer of the Tacoma Morning News Tribune covered Riconosciuto's
claims and legal battles for that paper, including Riconosciuto's
three-week-long drug trial, held in Tacoma in April 1991. "I believe it is
significant that Casolaro's theory about a mega- conspiracy he called 'The
Octopus' seems to have developed after exposure to Riconosciuto's tales of
involvement in nearly every major national and international conspiracy of
the past decade," wrote Uhrhammer in a letter to the IRE Journal of the
Investigative Reporters & Editors group.
Uhrhammer says it was relatively easy for him to disprove many of
Riconosciuto's claims. "There were other instances in which it was obvious
that Riconosciuto had obtained small morsels of information, then
embellished and expanded those morsels into seven-course feasts of
conspiratorial derring-do that he fed back through the conspiracy network.
The thought of going into print with a story based on such a story makes
me shudder," wrote Uhrhammer.
Any reporter who checked the court file prior to Riconosciuto's trial
could have found documents that offered a psychiatric explanation for
[his] conspiracy tales. Psychiatrists who examined him in 1972, prior to
his first drug conviction, portrayed him as a mentally unstable person who
had trouble discerning between fact and fiction....I have been dismayed
and appalled by some articles in which Riconosciuto is quoted as a primary
source, if not sole source, in support of some conspiracy theory, but
without any warning to the reader that his credibility is suspect or
nonexistant.
Free-lance reporter Jonathan Littman spent four months investigating
charges regarding the Canazon Indian reservation, including those
circulated by Casolaro, who had been using Riconosciuto as a source.
Littman wrote a fascinating three-part series for the San Francisco
Chronicle on how outsiders were abusing tribal sovereignty. Littman and
Chronicle reporter Michael Taylor also wrote a story about Riconosciuto's
claims about several murders linked to persons associated with the Cabazon
reservation. "We had to throw out tons of stuff from Riconosciuto
wholesale...because we ended up trying to prove a negative," said Taylor.
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------
http://www.publiceye.org/media/spooky.html
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------
BIG STORIES, SPOOKY SOURCES
From the Columbia Journalism Review May/June 1993
Posted by permission of the author
By Chip Berlet
For an investigative journalist, reporting on official misconduct
involving covert operations, intelligence-gathering, and national security
issues is like competing in a potato-sack race in a minefield. All
officials tend to be suspicious of the motives of nosy journalists;
government spokespersons frequently deny first and dissemble later;
meanwhile, actual spies tend to keep their mouths shut. As a result,
sources for such stories frequently come from a murky netherworld of
ex-intelligence agents, retired military officers, and self-anointed
investigators. Some offer valuable information along with frustrating
fantasies; some are well-meaning but confused; others are professional or
amateur charlatans. A few are brilliant paranoid crackpots. Some people
just plain lie.
Over the past three years, this reporter has interviewed or read the
relevant writings of more than fifty investigative reporters and
researchers spanning the political spectrum. Most of them thought one
should not minimize the continuing reality of illegal and unethical
conduct by government and private intelligence operatives. But even those
who agreed that tough reporting on these subjects helps defend
constitutional safeguards added that they have grown very weary of hearing
the same unproved or debunked conspiratorial stories over and over again.
"A lot of stories with conspiratorial themes have gone a great distance
with very few credible witnesses," says Michael Kelly of "The New York
Times". "Some reporters use a much lower standard of evidence with these
stories. They are tempted to take what they can get, and overlook the fact
that the source has been convicted twice for perjury and on alternate
Tuesdays he thinks he is Napoleon Bonaparte."
If many of the key sources for conspiracy stories are unreliable, why are
so many journalists tempted to use them? One reason is that, in an age of
official denials, many journalists give unofficial sources the benefit of
the doubt. Another is that, in some cases, the tales these sources tell
provide a fairly clearcut explanation of what may otherwise be a confusing
welter of conceivably related events. In short, they provide a story line.
A third reason is that they can usually supply details that seem to
substantiate their version of events. When the details provided by two or
three such sources mesh, the theory gains in credibility and the story
built on it may gain wider attention in the media. Meanwhile, talk radio
shows, interviews on small FM stations, even messages posted on
computerized information networks contribute to keeping theories
alive--and building an audience that wants to hear more.
The following look at a selection of individuals and groups that have
served as sources for recent conspiracy stories may help to point up the
problems they can pose for journalists in both the print and broadcast
media.
Several spooky sources contributed to the October Surprise story line,
according to which the 1980 Reagan-Bush presidential campaign made a deal
with the Iranians to delay the release of American hostages until after
the November elections, to help assure the defeat of Jimmy Carter. A key
figure in that story, and one whose usefulness as a source has been
attacked and defended in these pages, was former Israeli intelligence
operative Ari Ben-Menashe (see "The October Surprise: Enter the Press,"
CJR, March/April 1992, and "October Surprise: Unger v. Weinberg," Letters,
May/June 1992).
One journalist who took Ben-Menashe's allegations more seriously than most
was Craig Unger, author of an October 1991 "Esquire" article titled
"October Surprise." Following several attacks on the Surprise theory,
Unger wrote a long, interesting article called "The Trouble with Ari,"
which appeared in "The Village Voice" in July 1992. There, more clearly
than in his "Esquire" piece, Unger explains the dilemma a source of this
kind poses for the journalist. After reminding readers that some of
BenMenashe's claims can be corroborated and that he was "the guy who
started talking about the clandestine American arms pipeline to Iraq's
Saddam Hussein. . . long before the story started breaking in the press
this spring," Unger writes:
"Ari has put five or six dozen journalists from all over the world through
roughly the same paces. His seduction begins with a display of his mastery
of the trade craft of the legendary Israeli intelligence services. A roll
of quarters handy for furtive phone calls, he navigates the back channels
that tie the spooks at Langley to their counterparts in Tel Aviv. His
astute analysis and mind-boggling revelations can stir even the most jaded
old hand of the Middle East. . . But trust him at your own risk. . . ."
"Listen to him, trust him, print his story verbatim--then sit around and
watch your career go up in flames."
Another oft-cited source in the October Surprise story was Michael
Riconosciuto, who provided many tantalizing leads to investigative
reporter Danny Casolaro before the free-lancer's death, which was ruled a
suicide (see "The Octopus File," CJR, November/December 1991).
Riconosciuto claimed to have specialized knowledge in computer science and
software design, the kind of knowledge that, he said, made him useful to
intelligence operatives. Casolaro was looking into the alleged theft by
the Justice department of a privately owned software program called
Promis. Riconosciuto offered an explanation: he told Casolaro that someone
in the Justice department had given the software to American intelligence
operatives for resale to intelligence agencies in Canada and abroad. One
form of payment, he told the journalist, was the orchestration of the
release of the American hostages being held in Iran.
Riconosciuto went on to weave a tale involving the Cabazon Indian
reservation in southern California, purportedly the site of a supersecret
research and testing base for weapons of interest to intelligence
operatives. Casolaro began to see the reservation as part of a
globe-spanning entity of untold power, which he called The Octopus.
Jerry Uhrhammer of the Tacoma, Washington, "Morning News Tribune" was the
only reporter to cover Riconosciuto's three-week-long drug trial, held in
Tacoma in April 1991. In the July/August 1992 "IRE Journal", Uhrhammer
wrote:
"Any reporter who checked the court file prior to Riconosciuto's trial
could have found documents that offered a psychiatric explanation for
[his] conspiracy tales. Psychiatrists who examined him in 1972, prior to
his first drug conviction, portrayed him as a mentally unstable person who
had trouble discerning between fact and fiction."
Uhrhammer added:
"I have been dismayed and appalled by some articles in which Riconosciuto
is quoted as a primary source, if not sole source, in support of some
conspiracy theory, but without any warning to the reader that his
credibility is suspect or nonexistent." Free-lance reporter Jonathan
Littman spent four months investigating charges regarding the Cabazon
Indian reservation, including those circulated by Casolaro, who had been
using Riconosciuto as a source. Littman wrote a fascinating three- part
series for the "San Francisco Chronicle" on how outsiders were abusing
tribal sovereignty. Littman and "Chronicle" reporter Michael Taylor also
wrote a story about Riconosciuto's claims about several murders linked to
persons associated with the Cabazon reservation. "We had to throw out tons
of stuff from Riconosciuto wholesale," says Taylor.
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------
From: jpshin...@my-deja.com (Jerry Shinley)
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: BIG STORIES, SPOOKY SOURCES
Date: 28 Sep 2004 21:00:31 -0400
[...]
> > Kenn Thomas reports in his book _Maury Island UFO: The Crisman
> >Conspiracy_ (IllumiNet Press, 1999) that "Riconoscuito also
> >made claims that he witnessed an alien autopsy, before the
> >circulation of the well-known footage of such, as well as
> >knowledge of the group called MJ-12 of UFO spy lore." (p. 149)
> >
> >Jerry Shinley
[...]
Here's a somewhat longer version of Thomas' story from a 1997 article:
http://www.umsl.edu/~skthoma/ocup.htm
http://www.umsl.edu/~skthoma/ocrev.htm
Octopus Revisited
by Kenn Thomas
The following article appeared in issue 6.4 (Oct. 97) of Lumpen, Chicago's
magazine for the disenchanted proletariat. [...]
[...]
After Casolaro's death, Michael Riconosciuto made claims that Casolaro
had learned nothing more than what one of two intelligence factions wanted
him to know in order to embarrass the other faction. One faction was
called Aquarius and had a leadership sub-group called MJ-12, the name, of
course, of the supposed secret group founded by Harry Truman in the wake
of the Roswell flying saucer crash. Riconosciuto even told one writer that
he had witnessed the autopsy of an alien body--this long before the famous
alien autopsy film began to circulate. Some have suggested that the tales
of extraterrestrials that surround areas like Area 51 and Pine Gap serve
as disinformation to deflect attention away from serious issues such as
gun-running and black project weapons development. Casolaro's own view,
and the extent of his knowledge and interest in this tributary from the
Octopus research, and whatever he learned that might have brought the
truth closer to the surface of the murky waters in which he swam, may have
died with him.
<end of excerpt>
Another article:
Copyright 1991 The Seattle Times Company
The Seattle Times
August 29, 1991, Thursday, Final Edition
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A1
LENGTH: 1605 words
HEADLINE: WORLDWIDE CONSPIRACY, OR FANTASY? -- FELON'S
STORY CHECKS OUT - KIND OF
BYLINE: BY CARLTON SMITH
BODY:
[...]
Enter Michael Riconosciuto, offering answers.
Earlier this year, Riconosciuto talked with investigators from the House
Judiciary Committee, which is looking into allegations that the U.S.
Department of Justice stole a computer program from a private company
called INSLAW.
[...]
But from that point, matters involving Riconosciuto turn ever more
weird:
-- Riconosciuto has claimed to have been involved in arms sales to the
Nicaraguan contras.
-- He claims to have invented a breakthrough that would allow a Third
World nation to develop an inexpensive nuclear bomb.
-- He claims to have inside information about a cult of satanists, and
has enlisted the support of a retired FBI agent who once investigated the
unsolved D.B. Cooper hijacking, according to Crawford. A few years ago,
Riconosciuto persuaded a Seattle television station to take him aloft in a
helicopter so he could point out locations where satanic human sacrifices
were supposed to have occurred.
-- Finally, Riconosciuto has claimed contact with forces from outer
space, according to several sources familiar with his statements to House
committee investigators. He has also claimed the U.S. Marshal's office has
hidden a flying saucer in the woods near Tacoma. In an interview with The
Times, Riconosciuto denied telling anyone he had seen a UFO. "No, never,
come on," he said.
[...]
<end of excerpts>
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------
http://www.orlingrabbe.com/binladin_timosman.htm
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------
When Osama Bin Ladin Was Tim Osman
by J. Orlin Grabbe
The two men headed to the Hilton Hotel in Sherman Oaks, California in the
late Spring of 1986 were on their way to meet representatives of the
mujahadeen, the Afghan fighters resisting the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan.
One of the two, Ted Gunderson, had had a distinguished career in the FBI,
serving as some sort of supervisor over Special Agents in the early 60s,
as head of the Dallas field office from 1973-75, and as head of the Los
Angeles field office from 1977-1979. He retired to become an investigator
for, among others, well-known attorney F. Lee Bailey. And all along the
way, Gunderson, whether or not actually a CIA contract agent, had been
around to provide services to various CIA and National Security Council
operations, as he was doing now.
In more recent years Gunderson was to become controversial for his
investigations into child prostitution rings, after he became convinced of
the innocence of an Army medical doctor named Jeffrey McDonald, who had
been convicted of the murder of his wife and three young children in the
1970s. This has led to various attempts by the patrons and operators of
the child prostitution industry to smear Gunderson's reputation.
Michael Riconosciuto was there to discuss assisting the mujahadeen with
MANPADs -- Man Portable Air Defense Systems. Stinger missiles were one
possibility. If the U.S. would permit their export, Riconosciuto could
modify the Stinger's electronics, so the guided missile would still be
effective against Soviet aircraft, but would not be a threat to U.S. or
NATO forces.
But Riconosciuto had another idea. Through his connections with the
Chinese industrial and military group Norinco, he could obtain the basic
components for the unassembled Chinese 107 MM rocket system. These could
be reconfigured into a man-portable, shoulder-fired, anti- aircraft guided
missile sytem, and produced in Pakistan at a facility called the Pakistan
Ordinance Works. The mujahadeen would then have a lethal weapon against
Soviet helicopter, observation, and transport aircraft.
Riconosciuto was more than just an expert on missile electronics; he was
also an expert on electronic computers and associated subjects such as
cryptology (see my "Michael Riconosciuto on Encryption").
Riconosciuto was a prodigy who had grown up in the spook community. The
Riconosciuto family had once run Hercules, California, as a company town.
In the early days (1861) a company called California Powder Works had been
established in Santa Cruz, CA. It later purchased land on San Pablo Bay,
and in 1881 started producing dynamite, locating buildings in gullies and
ravines for safety purposes. A particularly potent type of black powder
was named "Hercules Powder", which gave the name to the town of Hercules,
formally incorporated in 1900. In World War I, Hercules became the largest
producer of TNT in the U.S. Hercules, however, had gotten out of the
explosives business by 1940 when an anhydrous ammonia plant was
constructed. In 1959 Hercules began a new manufacturing facility to
produce methanol, formaldehyde, and urea formaldehyde. In 1966 the plant
was sold to Valley Nitrogen Producers. Labor problems led to a plant
closure in 1977. In 1979 the plant and site was purchased by a group of
investors calling themselves Hercules Properties, Ltd.
However, Michael and his father Marshall Riconosciuto, a friend of Richard
Nixon, continued to run the Hercules Research Corporation. In the early
1980s Michael also served as the Director of Research for a joint venture
between the Wackenhut Corporation of Coral Gables, Florida, and the
Cabazon Band of Indians in Indio, California. Riconosciuto's talents were
much in demand. He had created the a-neutronic bomb (or "Electro-
Hydrodynamic Gaseous Fuel Device"), which sank the ground level of the
Nevada test site by 30 feet when a prototype was tested. Samuel Cohen, the
inventor of the neutron bomb, said of Riconosciuto: "I've spoken to
Michael Riconosciuto (the inventor of the a-neutronic bomb) and he's an
extraordinarily bright guy. I also have a hunch, which I can't prove, that
they both (Riconosciuto and Lavos, his partner) indirectly work for the
CIA."
Riconosciuto's bomb made suitcase nukes obsolete, because it achieved
near-atomic explosive yields, but could be more easily minaturized. You
could have a suitcase a-neutronic bomb, or a briefcase a-neutronic bomb,
or simply a lady's purse a-neutronic bomb. Or just pull out your wallet
for identification and -- . The Meridian Arms Corporation, as well as the
Universities of California and Chicago owned a piece of the technology.
But there was more than explosives in the portfolios of the CIA agents who
surrounded Riconosciuto like moths around a candle. Both Robert Booth
Nichols, the shady head of Meridian Arms Corporation (with both CIA and
organized crime conections), and Dr. John Phillip Nichols, the manager of
the Cabazon reservation, were involved in bio-warfare work -- the first in
trying to sell bio-warfare products to the army through Wackenhut, the
second in giving tribal permission for research to take place at Cabazon.
According to Riconosciuto, the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) was in charge of the classified contracts for
biological warfare research. Riconosciuto would later testify under oath
that Stormont Laboratories was involved in the DARPA-Wackenhut- Cabazon
project. Jonathan Littman, a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle
would relate: "Cabazons and Wackenhut appeared to be acting as middlemen
between the Pentagon's DARPA and Stormont Laboratories, a small facility
in Woodland near Sacramento."
The Race Weapon
Riconosciuto would make additional claims about Bio-Rad corporation, a
medical supplier which had gradually taken over Hercules, California. They
were also, Riconosciuto would say, covertly engaged in bio- warfare
research -- producing some of the deadliest toxins known to man. The focus
of Bio-Rad's research was said to be bio-active elements that could be
tailored to attack those with certain types of DNA. Weapons could thus be
produced that were specifically designed to wipe out specific races or
genetic classes of human beings. (Alternatively, particular DNA types
could be immunized against a deadly biological agent; the agent could then
be released, and everyone else would die.)
A couple of years later, Meridian International Logistics, the parent
company of Meridian Arms, was to farm similar research out to the
Japanese. This included (according to minutes of a corporate meeting dated
Aug. 26, 1988) methods for "induction and activation of cytotoxic
T-lymphocytes". Associated with Meridian's Robert Booth Nichols in a
Middle Eastern operation called FIDCO, a company that ran arms into and
heroin out of Lebanon's Beqaa (Bekaa) Valley, was Harold Okimoto, a
high-ranking member of the Yakuza. Okimoto had longed worked under Frank
Carlucci (who served as Secretary of Defense and Deputy Director of the
CIA before becoming Chairman of The Carlyle Group). Okimoto owned food
concessions in casinos around the world -- Las Vega, Reno, Macao, and the
Middle East. (Free drinks and anthrax while you play blackjack, anyone?)
Meeting Riconosciuto and Gunderson at the hotel were two representatives
of the mujahadeen, waiting to discuss their armament needs. One of the two
was named "Ralph Olberg." The other one was called Tim Osman (or Ossman).
"Ralph Olberg" was an American businesman who was leading the procurement
of American weapons and technology on behalf of the Afghan rebels. He
worked through the Afghan desk at the U.S. State Department, as well as
through Senator Hubert Humphrey's office. Olberg looked after the Afghanis
through a curious front called MSH -- Management Sciences for Health.
The other man, dressed in Docker's clothing, was not a native Afghan any
more than Olberg was. He was a 27-year-old Saudi. Tim Osman (Ossman) has
recently become better known as Osama Bin Ladin. "Tim Osman" was the name
assigned to him by the CIA for his tour of the U.S. and U.S. military
bases, in search of political support and armaments.
Gunderson and Riconosciuto were not on an altruistic mission. They had
some conditions for their help. And they had some bad news to deliver. The
mujahadeen needed to be willing to test new weapons in the field and to
return a research report, complete with photos.
The bad news was that some factions of the CIA didn't feel that Oldberg
and Osman's group were the real representatives of the Afghans. Upon
hearing this both Tim and Ralph were indignant. They wanted to mount a
full-court press. Round up other members of their group and do a
congressional and White House lobbying effort in Washington, D.C.
"Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name."
-- "The Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
Did the lobbying effort take place? I don't know. There is some evidence
that Tim Osman and Ralph Oldberg visited the White House. There is
certainty that Tim Osman toured some U.S. military bases, even receiving
special demonstrations of the latest equipment. Why hasn't this been
reported in the major media?
One week after giving an affidavit to Inslaw regarding the PROMIS software
in 1991, Riconosciuto was arrested on trumped-up drug charges. The
Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case attempted to cover up
Riconosciuto's intelligence background by claiming to the jury he was
"delusional." A TV station came and pointed a camera out at the desert at
Cabazon and said, "Riconosciuto says he modified the PROMIS software
here." Of course Riconosciuto didn't modify the software out between the
cacti and yucca. Sand isn't good for computers. He did the modifications
in offices in nearby Indio, California. The AUSA told reporters
Riconosciuto had been diagnosed with a mental condition, the implication
being "he's making all this stuff up". Yes, there had been a mental
evaluation of Riconosciuto. I have a copy of the report. The diagnosis?
Here it is: NO MENTAL DISORDER. The Department of Justice consistently and
maliciously lied to the jury, just as had been threatened by Justice
Department official Peter Viednicks if Riconosciuto cooperated with the
congressional investigation of PROMIS.
If the war against Osama Bin Ladin (Tim Osman) is not a total fraud, then
what is Michael Riconosciuto doing in prison? Why doesn't he have an
office next to Colin Powell so he can give realistic advice on Bin Ladin's
thinking? And where is Ralph Olberg?
Thirty-four days before the East African embassy bombings of August 7,
1998, Riconosciuto notified the FBI in Miami that the bombings were going
to take place. Two days prior to the bombings he requested of BOP (Bureau
of Prisons) officials at the Federal Corrections Institution (FCI) in
Coleman, FL., that he be allowed to call ECOMOG security headquarters to
warn African officials. The BOP denied the request. Riconosciuto was
mystified at being ignored by the relevant government authorities. I'm not
mystified. I suspect the reason Riconosciuto was ignored was that the
relevant parties, including especially the Miami FBI office, knew all
along the bombings would take place. And they wanted them to happen.
The same is true with respect to the recent plane bombings of the WTC. It
wasn't an intelligence "failure". The terrorist acts were deliberately
allowed to happen. The actors may have been foreign. But the stage
directors appear to have been all along here in the U.S. Cui bono?
Isn't it time to let Michael Riconosciuto out of prison, and wipe the
slate clean of the trumped up drug charges, and let him be a national
security advisor -- at least with respect to the government's pursuit of
Osama Bin Ladin? Isn't it time to quit pretending Osama Bin Ladin came out
of nowhere?
This is not an academic argument. Sources say three dozen MANPADs have
been imported into Quebec, Canada, from Colombia (where they arrived from
Eastern Europe). The missile shipments followed the "northern" drug route
-- from Colombia into Canada. The missiles involved are Russian Strellas
and Iglas. These will serve just fine to take down commercial airline
flights. Just like TWA 800. Which group of terrorists has the missiles?
Meanwhile, how many biological warfare agents are in the hands of
organized crime? Maybe you should ask Riconosciuto about all this.
Michael Riconosciuto is now incarcerated at the FCI Allenwood, PA. You
know where to find him.
Note: Michael Riconosciuto has just been moved to Springfield, MO. His
address is:
Michael J. Riconosciuto
21309-086 Box 4000
U.S. Medical Center
Springfield, MO
65801-4000
J. Orlin Grabbe's homepage is located at http://orlingrabbe.com.
-30-
from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 5, No 46, November 12, 2001
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------
Dave
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 13, 8:15?pm, Rudy Lasparri <Rudy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <40Uvi.1783$3x....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
>> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The alien autopsy was a hoax, Dave. That's well-established. The fact that
>>> you continue to harp on the issue once more . . .
>>> Martin
>> You can say that about Judyth. You're her lead "harpist."
>
>
> In addition to dodging the issue of his hopeless inability to substantiate
> any of Judyth's fantasies, Martin's not being entirely forthcoming
> (surprise, surprise) about the alien autopsy thing. You see, Martin
> endorses the credibility of a convicted felon who claims to have worked
> for the CIA, met personally with Osama Bin Laden, and witnessed an actual
> alien autopsy.
>
No, no one endorses the credibility of that convicted felon.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 13, 10:24?am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> In fact, we do have a qualified diagnosis, Dave, but it's not for public
>> display.
>>
>> Martin
>
>
> Just another variation on Martin's usual theme:
>
The Top One Hundred Dave Reitzes straw man arguments.
Martin Shackelford
because he is unreliable on some other matters.
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1187077236.5...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> Your argument seems to be that he is unreliable regarding his own life
> because he is unreliable on some other matters.
>
> Martin
You find Riconosciuto's story unreliable, Martin?
Which part? \:^)
> > J. Orlin Grabbe's homepage is located athttp://orlingrabbe.com.
>
> > -30-
>
> > from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 5, No 46, November 12, 2001
>
> > <QUOTE OFF>-------------------------
Dave
http://www.jfk-online.com/judythshack.html
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1187229896.7...@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
John McAdams
This is real research.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>In fact, we do have a qualified diagnosis, Dave, but it's not for public
>display.
>
The list of "trust me, but I can't show you the evidence" evidence
grows almost by the hour here on the newsgroup.
>Martin
>
>"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1186905777....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 9, 6:52 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> She lost her short-term memory, not her marbles.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>
>>
>> You have a qualified diagnosis affirming your claim, Martin?
>>
>> Hell, let's see that bad boy!
>>
>> (Not in our lifetime.)
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>> > Hi, Jerry.
>>>
>>> > Glad to see you're still active. Too bad Judith lost her marbles.
>>>
>>> > ::Clark
>>
>>
>
>
--
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Your argument seems to be that he is unreliable regarding his own life
>because he is unreliable on some other matters.
>
Yes, Martin. That argument follows quite well.
Somebody telling crackpot stories about one thing is unreliable about
other things.
--
Martin Shackelford
about it, John.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:46cddeca....@news.alt.net...