Green glass coupon
Anthony Marsh
glassware. I presume he got it from Judyth, but I don't know if he scanned
it in or if she did.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/LuziannePremium2.jpeg
He also sent me a scan of a similar coupon Reily issued for Cannon bath
towels.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/LuziannePremium.jpeg
NB to online researchers. Some graphics formats allow you to edit the
PROPERTIES to include information about who created the photo and even add
keywords. JPEG is not a preferred format.
Steve Thomas
what the hell is this supposed to prove?
paul seaton
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:L8adnZpcWc0N3ZTV...@comcast.com...
OZ : Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain .... !!
black...@aol.com
There's no date. What year is this from?
Barb Junkkarinen
<black...@aol.com> wrote:
It could be darn near from any era ...and good for any number of
products. When I was looking around the net for a green glass a few
months ago, I found that Luzianne had a steady stream of assorted
household products they made vouchers and coupons for ...heck, you can
buy a couple dozen assortment of them on several sires. I found no
green glass ... but there's no shortage of "mammy" cookie jars and
salt and pepper shakers, tea and coffee cans, tea spoons ...all kinds
of stuff.
Kinda fun ... but, of no value or relevance as regards the green
glass. We all know it was available as a premium ... the company said
so. And when.
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
> On 19 Apr 2008 23:35:53 -0400, "black...@aol.com"
> <black...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 19, 12:28 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Martin sent me a scan of a coupon for the Reily Company's Luzianne
>>> glassware. I presume he got it from Judyth, but I don't know if he scanned
>>> it in or if she did.
>>>
>>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/LuziannePremium2.jpeg
>>>
>>> He also sent me a scan of a similar coupon Reily issued for Cannon bath
>>> towels.
>>>
>>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/LuziannePremium.jpeg
>>>
>>> NB to online researchers. Some graphics formats allow you to edit the
>>> PROPERTIES to include information about who created the photo and even add
>>> keywords. JPEG is not a preferred format.
>> There's no date. What year is this from?
>
> It could be darn near from any era ...and good for any number of
> products. When I was looking around the net for a green glass a few
> months ago, I found that Luzianne had a steady stream of assorted
> household products they made vouchers and coupons for ...heck, you can
> buy a couple dozen assortment of them on several sires. I found no
> green glass ... but there's no shortage of "mammy" cookie jars and
> salt and pepper shakers, tea and coffee cans, tea spoons ...all kinds
> of stuff.
>
Well, since you are an expert on Luziane and know every promotion that
Reily ran, can you post a chart of the dates of their promotions and
which months they offered each type?
Can you buy today exactly the same glass as Judyth claims to have?
If so, why couldn't she have done that?
> Kinda fun ... but, of no value or relevance as regards the green
> glass. We all know it was available as a premium ... the company said
> so. And when.
>
The green glass has no value? Then you should be able to get it for free.
So, Miss Glassware expert, how much are my Astoria worth today? Can I
sell them on Ebay by claiming that Oswald gave them to me?
> Barb :-)
>
Anthony Marsh
Again, don't ask me. I only hosted it. I don't know who scanned it in.
Anthony Marsh
That some of your questions about the origin of the graphics might be
answered if the originator had included some comments in the proper
format.
paul seaton
Yes, Barb, get your damn shit together & do all those things now, will you
???
paul seaton
yeah, man, Tony don't READ dat shit, he just STORE it, that ok with you
dude ?
Barb Junkkarinen
<paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
Yeah, I'll put it on my list.<g> It currently has things I think are
much more interesting on it though.
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
evidence, Steve--or were you unaware of that?
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:632ab939-0ccd-4cad...@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Steve Thomas
Im still trying to figure out what the hell this is suppsed to prove/
support, is this the blockbuster post you were talking about Marsh?
The one that was going to be embarassing to all the Judyth naysayers?
Anthony Marsh
More mindless attacks from the WC defenders as I predicted. As I said,
you people would attack me for hosting the documents. That is one of
your tactics to try to cut off discussion.
Michael O'Dell
This is true. A single piece of evidence may not prove a fact, but
several of them together might be very convincing.
So, what else do you have to support a connection between Oswald and this
peice of glass?
Michael
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WMWOj.6005$GO4....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
Martin Shackelford
from Oswald, and one of them saw a note inside the glass that
wasn't in her mother's handwriting, didn't realize it was important,
and threw it away.
Martin
"Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:480d541f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> Martin,
>
> This is true. A single piece of evidence may not prove a fact, but
> several of them together might be very convincing.
>
> So, what else do you have to support a connection between Oswald and this
> peice of glass?
>
What piece of glass? You've seen this piece of glass yourself?
Anthony Marsh
I never claimed it would be a blockbuster. First I was making fun of
Barb's message. Second I predicted that I would be attacked merely for
uploading the images. Right on both counts.
Michael O'Dell
> Michael O'Dell wrote:
>> Martin,
>>
>> This is true. A single piece of evidence may not prove a fact, but
>> several of them together might be very convincing.
>>
>> So, what else do you have to support a connection between Oswald and this
>> peice of glass?
>>
>
> What piece of glass? You've seen this piece of glass yourself?
>
Another silly comment from Tony.
Michael O'Dell
Attacking people is one of YOUR tactics to try to cut of discusssion.
Michael
jfk...@gmail.com
Amazing how predictable they are.
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Her children report being told (in 1980) that she received the glass
> from Oswald, and one of them saw a note inside the glass that
> wasn't in her mother's handwriting, didn't realize it was important,
> and threw it away.
>
So Judyth told her family about this green glass, which was only
manufactured until 1965, in 1980, which was long before the Liftonites
claim she decided to 'insert herself into history'. Certainly this
information works to debunk the wacky claim.
Don't suppose they will realize that they sandbagged themselves?
>
> "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:480d541f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
>
> > Martin,
>
> > This is true. A single piece of evidence may not prove a fact, but
> > several of them together might be very convincing.
>
> > So, what else do you have to support a connection between Oswald and this
> > peice of glass?
>
> > Michael
>
> > "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >news:WMWOj.6005$GO4....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> >> Many things are established by a combination of different pieces of
> >> evidence, Steve--or were you unaware of that?
>
> >> Martin
>
> >> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>news:632ab939-0ccd-4cad...@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Apr 19, 11:28 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Martin sent me a scan of a coupon for the Reily Company's Luzianne
> >>> glassware. I presume he got it from Judyth, but I don't know if he
> >>> scanned
> >>> it in or if she did.
>
> >>>http://the-puzzle-palace.com/LuziannePremium2.jpeg
>
> >>> He also sent me a scan of a similar coupon Reily issued for Cannon bath
> >>> towels.
>
> >>>http://the-puzzle-palace.com/LuziannePremium.jpeg
>
> >>> NB to online researchers. Some graphics formats allow you to edit the
> >>> PROPERTIES to include information about who created the photo and even
> >>> add
> >>> keywords. JPEG is not a preferred format.
>
> >> what the hell is this supposed to prove?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Martin Shackelford
lying for their mother. In fact, Judyth's children prefer that she hadn't
gone public, but they know her well enough not to claim she is lying.
There are all sorts of inconsistencies among the claims of the attackers,
but when I point them out, they ignore the posts completely. I've asked
them repeatedly to explain when they believe Judyth "made up the story,"
but the question has never been answered, because it brings up too many
other questions they can't answer, like:
1) When she told her sister Lynda in 1964 that she had an affair the
previous summer in New Orleans, who do they think she was referring to?
2) When she told her best friend in 1980 that she had an affair with Lee
Oswald, had she already made up "the story based on Haslam"?
3) When she told her children that Oswald gave her the green glass, which
had been in the family as long as they could remember, and her daughter
saw a note inside consistent with this, had she already "made up the story
based on Haslam"?
4) Did she save so much material from the summer of 1963 because she was
craftily planning to "make up a story based on Haslam"? Inconsistencies
and avoidance are their stock in trade--that's why they have to pretend
that such things are OUR problem.
Martin
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67bdba7f-5ef5-432f...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>In the past, they've already implied that Judyth's children have been
>lying for their mother. In fact, Judyth's children prefer that she hadn't
>gone public, but they know her well enough not to claim she is lying.
I'd like to see exactly what her children said. Like a transcript.
Like a video.
I know her sister was in TMWKK, and she said nothing about knowing
anything about any affair with Oswald.
>There are all sorts of inconsistencies among the claims of the attackers,
>but when I point them out, they ignore the posts completely. I've asked
>them repeatedly to explain when they believe Judyth "made up the story,"
>but the question has never been answered, because it brings up too many
>other questions they can't answer, like:
>
>1) When she told her sister Lynda in 1964 that she had an affair the
>previous summer in New Orleans, who do they think she was referring to?
>
In the first place, we don't know she told her sister that -- at least
not until you post the video, audio, etc.
In the second place, if she was such a skank, it could have been
anybody.
>2) When she told her best friend in 1980 that she had an affair with Lee
>Oswald, had she already made up "the story based on Haslam"?
>
Did she include the "bioweapons lab" at that point?
And how do we know that the "told her best friend" thing is true?
>3) When she told her children that Oswald gave her the green glass, which
>had been in the family as long as they could remember, and her daughter
>saw a note inside consistent with this, had she already "made up the story
>based on Haslam"?
>
Again, we don't know she told her daughter this. The "note inside"
was probably consistent with a lot of things.
And did she mention the "bioweapons project" at that point?
>4) Did she save so much material from the summer of 1963 because she was
>craftily planning to "make up a story based on Haslam"? Inconsistencies
>and avoidance are their stock in trade--that's why they have to pretend
>that such things are OUR problem.
>
A lot of people have old stuff laying around.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
And Martin jumps on others for "unverified claiims." ... and seemingly
with a straight face. <g>
Barb :-)
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
William Yates
> In the past, they've already implied that Judyth's children have been
> lying for their mother. In fact, Judyth's children prefer that she hadn't
> gone public, but they know her well enough not to claim she is lying.
> There are all sorts of inconsistencies among the claims of the attackers,
> but when I point them out, they ignore the posts completely. I've asked
> them repeatedly to explain when they believe Judyth "made up the story,"
> but the question has never been answered, because it brings up too many
> other questions they can't answer, like:
>
> 1) When she told her sister Lynda in 1964 that she had an affair the
> previous summer in New Orleans, who do they think she was referring to?
Did she tell Lynda it was Oswald?
>
> 2) When she told her best friend in 1980 that she had an affair with Lee
> Oswald, had she already made up "the story based on Haslam"?
Did she tell her best friend about the "Get Castro" project?
>
> 3) When she told her children that Oswald gave her the green glass, which
> had been in the family as long as they could remember, and her daughter
> saw a note inside consistent with this, had she already "made up the story
> based on Haslam"?
Does Haslam discuss Oswald stealing the green glass?
>
> 4) Did she save so much material from the summer of 1963 because she was
> craftily planning to "make up a story based on Haslam"? Inconsistencies
> and avoidance are their stock in trade--that's why they have to pretend
> that such things are OUR problem.
She claims in her book that she destroyed the second page of a letter
Robert wrote her. And she destroyed Ferrie's medical library card. Some
pages were allegedly stolen from her diary. How do know that Judyth didn't
conveniently destroy/lose/have stolen anything that might not fit her
story?
We don't.
Michael O'Dell
> In the past, they've already implied that Judyth's children have been
> lying for their mother. In fact, Judyth's children prefer that she hadn't
> gone public, but they know her well enough not to claim she is lying.
> There are all sorts of inconsistencies among the claims of the attackers,
> but when I point them out, they ignore the posts completely. I've asked
> them repeatedly to explain when they believe Judyth "made up the story,"
> but the question has never been answered, because it brings up too many
> other questions they can't answer, like:
Martin,
Serious question.
Hypothetically, if someone could answer those questions, would you care?
Would you give it any meaning?
Or would you think that Judyth should be believed by default, barring any
indisputable absolute proof otherwise?
Michael
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Good question, Michael ... though I question whether there is any such
thing that Martin would consider "indisputable absolute proof" where
Jusyth is concerned. He accepts all kinds of vague unverified claims
as proof/documentaion to support her story ...but when it comes to
something being proof/documentation against her story ... ...I dunno.
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
by little.
We do know that McAdams & Co. has IGNORED anything that doesn't
fit THEIR desired version of things. Same effect.
Martin
"William Yates" <william_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CuKdnUJryI3s3I3V...@earthlink.com...
Martin Shackelford
In fact, I've posted the texts of e-mails from both of her children who
have written about this, and from her sister, John. I'm sure you have
them. Leave it to you to dismiss her with a pejorative term (skank), and
do your best to slant the argument to suggest that she would sleep with
"anybody." There is no evidence of that whatsoever.
According to her best friend, she learned this in 1980. I think she's on
the Dankbaar DVD, and I've corresponded with her.
And "a lot of people have old stuff laying around" actually says nothing,
but is a typical McAdams "pretending to sound profound" piece of
meaningless nonsense.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:r46014lqd61tk9333...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
those who avoid them make arguments which would be much more difficult to
sustain in light of those issues.
Martin
"Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4810...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Steve Thomas
wrote:> >"Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
exactly why i dont even think Team Judyth believes Judyth.
Michael O'Dell
very long time is important and significant. That's why I'm asking you
this question, which you didn't answer. It's an important question. You
expect that people not avoid those questions. I ask that you do the same.
Her list of documents and evidence doesn't prove anything directly about
the JFK plot. It seems that all that evidence goes to supporting other
elements of her story, to the point where if you believe her about that
stuff then you must believe her about the JFK stuff. I think that's a
fair characterization, but if not please tell me. Explain what else there
is to convince you.
So my question again is if, hypothetically, someone could answer your
questions would it change anything? Or would you believe her as long as
there was no absolute proof that she made it up?
The question goes to whether her story is falsifiable with you. A
scientific theory, which I realize is somewhat different, must be
falsifiable to be a valid theory. Meaning, there must be a way to
hypothetically prove it wrong.
If one could take away the supports from Judyth's story and someone
continued to believe in it, it's no longer rational belief. It's faith.
It is not up to people to prove Judyth wrong. It is up to someone to
prove Judyth right. Do you accept that, or is it a matter of faith for
you?
Would you continue to believe Judyth's story if someone could answer your
previously listed objections, or would you insist on absolute proof of
falsehood?
Thanks,
Michael
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ARfQj.10495$V14....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
Michael O'Dell
favor of Judyth's story is that she has told parts of it for many years,
going back to the early sixties? It's clearly not something she made up
recently.
Would you, Pam and Martin, agree with that, or is there something else
more powerfully convincing? If there is please tell me, I'd like to know.
Thanks,
Michael
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67bdba7f-5ef5-432f...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Michael O'Dell
Perhaps you forgot about this. Can you answer please?
Thanks,
Michael
"Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4810...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
jfk...@gmail.com
> So it would be fair to say that the most compelling evidence overall in
> favor of Judyth's story is that she has told parts of it for many years,
> going back to the early sixties? It's clearly not something she made up
> recently.
This goes to debunk the Team McAdams fantasy that Judyth made everything
up in the 90's.
>
> Would you, Pam and Martin, agree with that, or is there something else
> more powerfully convincing? If there is please tell me, I'd like to know.
Think of aaj as a mind-control experiment set up to see how many will
allow a chosen few to tell them what to think. Those who are able to
think objectively are subject to personal invective. Those that go along
with the part line are given little pats and perks. <g> Where do you
stand?
> <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Apr 26, 2:51 pm, "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> So it would be fair to say that the most compelling evidence overall in
>> favor of Judyth's story is that she has told parts of it for many years,
>> going back to the early sixties? It's clearly not something she made up
>> recently.
>
>This goes to debunk the Team McAdams fantasy that Judyth made everything
>up in the 90's.
>
>>
>> Would you, Pam and Martin, agree with that, or is there something else
>> more powerfully convincing? If there is please tell me, I'd like to know.
>
>Think of aaj as a mind-control experiment set up to see how many will
>allow a chosen few to tell them what to think. Those who are able to
>think objectively are subject to personal invective. Those that go along
>with the part line are given little pats and perks. <g> Where do you
>stand?
Indeed, the invectives hurled at those interested in fact checking
some of Judyth's claims has been quite an amazing storm. Telling.
paul seaton
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12f497cf-9594-4ca8...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 26, 2:51 pm, "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> So it would be fair to say that the most compelling evidence overall in
>> favor of Judyth's story is that she has told parts of it for many years,
>> going back to the early sixties? It's clearly not something she made up
>> recently.
>
> This goes to debunk the Team McAdams fantasy that Judyth made everything
> up in the 90's.
>
>>
>> Would you, Pam and Martin, agree with that, or is there something else
>> more powerfully convincing? If there is please tell me, I'd like to
>> know.
>
> Think of aaj as a mind-control experiment set up to see how many will
> allow a chosen few to tell them what to think.
yeah. And that would explain the voices, too, Pam, wouldn't it ? The
voices, trying to tell you what to think... :-) But they won't get you,
will they Pam ? Because you're too smart to believe those voices....
> Those who are able to
> think objectively are subject to personal invective.
Yes. The voices want to control your mind, don't they ? But you won't let
them because you are too strong...
> Those that go along
> with the part line are given little pats and perks. <g>
Sounds exciting ...
Where do you
> stand?
Wherever there's a space...?
paul s
Michael O'Dell
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12f497cf-9594-4ca8...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 26, 2:51 pm, "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> So it would be fair to say that the most compelling evidence overall in
>> favor of Judyth's story is that she has told parts of it for many years,
>> going back to the early sixties? It's clearly not something she made up
>> recently.
>
> This goes to debunk the Team McAdams fantasy that Judyth made everything
> up in the 90's.
>
I understand. That's my point.
>>
>> Would you, Pam and Martin, agree with that, or is there something else
>> more powerfully convincing? If there is please tell me, I'd like to
>> know.
>
> Think of aaj as a mind-control experiment set up to see how many will
> allow a chosen few to tell them what to think. Those who are able to
> think objectively are subject to personal invective. Those that go along
> with the part line are given little pats and perks. <g> Where do you
> stand?
>
How does that answer the question?
What is the most powerful evidence that Judyth's story is true? Is it that
she couldn't have made it all up in the 90's?
Michael
John McAdams
wrote:
>
><jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:12f497cf-9594-4ca8...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 26, 2:51 pm, "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> So it would be fair to say that the most compelling evidence overall in
>>> favor of Judyth's story is that she has told parts of it for many years,
>>> going back to the early sixties? It's clearly not something she made up
>>> recently.
>>
>> This goes to debunk the Team McAdams fantasy that Judyth made everything
>> up in the 90's.
>>
>
>I understand. That's my point.
>
I think it's obvious that some of the more "interesting" parts were
made up in the 90s, especially the "bioweapons project" stuff she
borrowed from Haslam.
I frankly don't know how long she has been claiming an affair with
Oswald. Martin says for decades, but he hasn't produced the evidence
on that.
How long this or that piece of her fantasy has been around can't
really be known.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
jfk...@gmail.com
> On 6 May 2008 23:04:54 -0400, "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
Hilarious from one who tries to debunk anything or anyone connected to
a conspiracy in order to push the great WCR fantasy.
William Yates
> On Apr 26, 2:51 pm, "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> So it would be fair to say that the most compelling evidence overall in
>> favor of Judyth's story is that she has told parts of it for many years,
>> going back to the early sixties? It's clearly not something she made up
>> recently.
>
> This goes to debunk the Team McAdams fantasy that Judyth made everything
> up in the 90's.
>
>> Would you, Pam and Martin, agree with that, or is there something else
>> more powerfully convincing? If there is please tell me, I'd like to know.
>
> Think of aaj as a mind-control experiment set up to see how many will
> allow a chosen few to tell them what to think. Those who are able to
> think objectively are subject to personal invective. Those that go along
> with the part line are given little pats and perks. <g> Where do you
> stand?
Most of the "personal invective" has been directed at Barb by you, Tony
and Martin with Howard returning to add some more. So, who's responsible
for the mind control on the four of you?
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> jfk2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 2:51 pm, "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> So it would be fair to say that the most compelling evidence overall in
> >> favor of Judyth's story is that she has told parts of it for many years,
> >> going back to the early sixties? It's clearly not something she made up
> >> recently.
>
> > This goes to debunk the Team McAdams fantasy that Judyth made everything
> > up in the 90's.
>
> >> Would you, Pam and Martin, agree with that, or is there something else
> >> more powerfully convincing? If there is please tell me, I'd like to know.
>
> > Think of aaj as a mind-control experiment set up to see how many will
> > allow a chosen few to tell them what to think. Those who are able to
> > think objectively are subject to personal invective. Those that go along
> > with the part line are given little pats and perks. <g> Where do you
> > stand?
>
> Most of the "personal invective" has been directed at Barb by you, Tony
> and Martin with Howard returning to add some more. So, who's responsible
> for the mind control on the four of you?
Criticizing Team McAdams for their narrow focus and dirt dinging and their
refusal to acknowledge anything of value is hardly personal, unless one is
overly-sensitive, I suppose.
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:12f497cf-9594-4ca8...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 2:51 pm, "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> So it would be fair to say that the most compelling evidence overall in
> >> favor of Judyth's story is that she has told parts of it for many years,
> >> going back to the early sixties? It's clearly not something she made up
> >> recently.
>
> > This goes to debunk the Team McAdams fantasy that Judyth made everything
> > up in the 90's.
>
> >> Would you, Pam and Martin, agree with that, or is there something else
> >> more powerfully convincing? If there is please tell me, I'd like to
> >> know.
>
> > Think of aaj as a mind-control experiment set up to see how many will
> > allow a chosen few to tell them what to think.
>
> yeah. And that would explain the voices, too, Pam, wouldn't it ? The
> voices, trying to tell you what to think... :-) But they won't get you,
> will they Pam ? Because you're too smart to believe those voices....
I'm not you, so I wouldn't know. Are you really oblivious to the
tactics going on here?
Michael O'Dell
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87645e0a-b1a8-43fb...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
You still didn't answer the question. You just took the opportunity to
attack McAdams.
Michael
jfk...@gmail.com
You missed my point. Your question is based on the false premise that I
'believe' or 'disbelieve' witnesses as Team McAdams does.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
You'll have better luck trying to nail jello to a tree.
Barb :-)
>
>
paul seaton
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49d11f74-97a1-4f6d...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Just to clarify, Michael asked you :
"So it would be fair to say that the most compelling evidence overall
favor of Judyth's story is that she has told parts of it for many years,
going back to the early sixties? " and your response is that this question
is based on the false premise that you 'believe' or 'disbelieve'
witnesses.
So, for example , if some witness appeared out of the woodwork & announced
that Napoleon Bonaparte was alive & well & living in Rhode Island, it
would not occur to you to either believe or disbelieve them ? I think
most people will find that very hard to believe, Pam. The suspicion will
be that your 'no belief or disbelief' stance on Judyth, is just a 'neat '
( ahem) way of avoiding awkward - factual - questions.
To try to nail some jello here , would you agree - for eg - that Judy
either did or did not , as a matter of historical fact , have an affair
with LHO ? Or is that kind of profoundly irritating factual question still
not multi-dimensional enough for you ?
paul s
jfk...@gmail.com
Apparently you are unaware of a similar flap some time ago regarding the
witnesses who said they saw a t&t bullet hole in the windshield, yet each
saw it in a different place on the windshield. A couple of people
insisted I must think they were 'lying'. It was also difficult then for
the process I use to be acknowledged.
paul seaton
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ba65995-816b-4f88...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I'll try again.
Would you agree that Judy either did or did not , as a matter of historical
fact , have an affair
with LHO ?
Or do you think - as seems to be the case - that she somehow , possibly,
both did & didn't ?
>
>
Michael O'Dell
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49d11f74-97a1-4f6d...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
No, there was no such premise in my question. Read it again.
I'm asking about the best evidence. Your belief or unbelief would not
change the answer.
Michael
jfk...@gmail.com
Let me try once again as well.
In order to determine what Judyth's relationship with Lee was I look at
what Judyth has said, and then what others around her have said. I look
at Anna Lewis' statements about seeing Judyth and Lee together.
And I look at Marina's statements in her WCR and Shaw trial testimonies
where she talks about how there were many times when she didn't know where
Lee was, including the fact that she didn't know for nearly two weeks that
Lee had been fired from Reily because he just kept on acting like he was
going to work every day.
I also look at Lee Oswald himself, and the numerous conflicts in his
actions. I ask why he was sending Marina back to Russia. It seems that
their relationship has been a failure in many respects. Is it possible
that Lee and Judyth were involved? Definitely. Does she know things
about him that nobody other than Marina knows? Yes.
paul seaton
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:db2c607a-a537-4691...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
OK so the long and the short of it is that you do believe Judy had that
affair with LHO, and the evidence you would present in favour of this
proposition is :
1) Anna Lewis
2) Marina sometimes didn't know where Lee was
3) Marina didn't know for 2 weeks he's been fired from Reily
4) LHO wanted to send Marina back to the USSR
5) She knows things about him nobody other than Marina knows.
Numbers 2 3 & 4 are circumstantial & don't prove anything, though you
might find them suggestive. Which leaves Anna Lewis & "She knows things
about him nobody other than Marina knows."
Would you care to elaborate on exactly what these things are ? ( And, btw,
I cannot understand , if they are known only to Marina, how do YOU know
about them ? )
jfk...@gmail.com
Your prior reply indicates that you don't know how to differentiate
between attacking a person and attacking a mindset.
I don't believe or disbelieve witnesses. You do. Therefore 'best
evidence' would have to be something you believe, would it not? What
would you 'believe' as 'best evidence'?
jfk...@gmail.com
My statement and your reduction into 'list' do not equate. Judyth's
statements are corroborated by Marina who is documented to have known
LHO and by Anna Lewis who also has a connection to the assassination
through her husband David. Marina's statements and Lee's actions make
more sense when viewed alongside Judyth's statements.
>
> Numbers 2 3 & 4 are circumstantial & don't prove anything,
Corroborating information helps to fill in the gaps as to Lee's
motivations. Looks like you are only looking for something that
'proves' something to you. What would that be?
>though you
> might find them suggestive. Which leaves Anna Lewis & "She knows things
> about him nobody other than Marina knows."
>
> Would you care to elaborate on exactly what these things are ? ( And, btw,
> I cannot understand , if they are known only to Marina, how do YOU know
> about them ? )
Judyth knows things about Lee, Marina and their baby that are personal
and of such a nature that they could only be verified by Marina. So
far, she has not wanted to talk with Judyth.
howardp
Some of the best cases in the world are largel or entirely circumstancial.
If you like eyewitness testimony so much (proving to be less reliable that
previously thought), why do you appear to overlook Anna's? Given its
nature (not just an eyewitness identification, but declarative statements
leaving no doubt that this was an ongoing affair, it is mighty powerful
evidence. To counter it, you would have to dirty her up some. Ah - but
that trick has already been tried when John McAdams went with his
"sources" on the libel that I had bribed Anna to tell a fib. Years later,
the intrepid McAdams tells me, he withdrew the libel from his site because
it was "inadequately sourced." Without so much as an apology to me.
As for things only Marina knows, start with the Pushkin book, known only
to Marina, the Paines, and the late Mary Ferrell. My guess is you missed
that discussion. Even Mary's (fake) renunciation of Judyth could find no
way to explain her knowledge of the book.
Study up before you write nonsense.
Howard
Barb Junkkarinen
How about something that can be documented as fact?
Just a thought .....
William Yates
Who talked to Anna first? Judyth? Or you or Martin?
William Yates
And hopefully Marina never does.
One of the strongest points against Judyth is that she really did do
extensive research into this period-far more than necessary if she were
a genuine witness.
paul seaton
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:60b0252e-8200-4a50...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Well, I don't think I left anything out. These were the points you
mentioned.
> Judyth's
> statements are corroborated by Marina who is documented to have known
> LHO
I have to agree that Marina is documented to have known LHO. But anyone can
read Marina & Lee & come up with any number of statements about Lee that
will be confirmed by Marina. You say that J knows stuff only Marina could
know ( below) but then admit - you don't have any actual examples.
and by Anna Lewis who also has a connection to the assassination
> through her husband David.
Seems to be boiling down to Anna Lewis.
Marina's statements and Lee's actions make
> more sense when viewed alongside Judyth's statements.
Maybe because Js statements were created to fit what she could discover
about Marina's statements & Lee's actions ? What, to you, makes this
impossible ?
>>
>> Numbers 2 3 & 4 are circumstantial & don't prove anything,
>
> Corroborating information helps to fill in the gaps as to Lee's
> motivations. Looks like you are only looking for something that
> 'proves' something to you. What would that be?
Something that 'proves' something to me.
Or even something that proves something to me.
You think claims of the nature of Judyth's should be accepted without proof
? Isn't proof the only reliable method of sorting fact from fiction ?
>
>>though you
>> might find them suggestive. Which leaves Anna Lewis & "She knows things
>> about him nobody other than Marina knows."
>>
>> Would you care to elaborate on exactly what these things are ? ( And,
>> btw,
>> I cannot understand , if they are known only to Marina, how do YOU know
>> about them ? )
>
> Judyth knows things about Lee, Marina and their baby that are personal
> and of such a nature that they could only be verified by Marina. So
> far, she has not wanted to talk with Judyth.
>
>
So you are just taking Js word that she knows stuff only Marina could know,
yet you state it as established fact. Is accepting Js word without any kind
of proof a reliable way of sorting fact from fiction, as far as you're
concerned ? From what you say, it seems so.
With such an easy going methodology, Pam, aren't you in danger of appearing
somewhat gullible ?
paul seaton
"howardp" <ho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4be2ed1f-42e0-41ac...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
## PS replies : Howard, don't insult me. I spent many a miserable hour
discussing the "Queen of Spades" / Mary Ferrell issue here & with Judyth
herself. The issue boils down to 'did Judyth know the colour of the copy in
the Paine household" (if memory serves) . I didn't come away more convinced
on that than I am by any 'psychic'cold reading . The book was grey. Judy
described it as grey. Big deal. There are about 678 million colours you non
artists all call grey. And I don't recall that J couldn't have found a
similar edition at the Louisiana University library.
There are not that many editions around - it was in Russian, from memory ?
Howard
paul seaton
Howard says:
As for things only Marina knows, start with the Pushkin book, known only
to Marina, the Paines, and the late Mary Ferrell. My guess is you missed
that discussion. Even Mary's (fake) renunciation of Judyth could find no
way to explain her knowledge of the book.
Paul S replies :
You are not good at guessing, Howard.
See The Great Queen of Spades Debate from years ago : =>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/341a5637efb176df/f55f57111bc51863?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=judyth+queen+spades#f55f57111bc51863
(link may/will wrap)
As one of Judy's showcase pieces of evidence, this was - & still is - pretty
uninspired stuff.
James K. Olmstead
"howardp" <ho...@aol.com> wrote in message news:4be2ed1f-42e0-41ac...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >> >> >>> she
> >> >> >> >> >>> made
> >> >> >> >> >>> up
> >> >> >> >> >>> recently.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> This goes to debunk the Team McAdams fantasy that Judyth made
> >> >> >> >> >> everything
> >> >> >> >> >> up in the 90's.
>
>
> >> >> >> >> I think it's obvious that some of the more "interesting" parts
> >> >> >> >> were
> >> >> >> >> made up in the 90s, especially the "bioweapons project" stuff
> >> >> >> >> she
> >> >> >> >> borrowed from Haslam.
>
> >> >> >> >> I frankly don't know how long she has been claiming an affair
> >> >> >> >> with
> >> >> >> >> evidence
> >> >> >> >> on that.
>
> >> >> >> >> How long this or that piece of her fantasy has been around can't
> >> >> >> >> really be known.
>
> >> >> >> >> .John
> >> >> >> >> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> >> >> >> > Hilarious from one who tries to debunk anything or anyone
> >> >> >> > connected
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > a conspiracy in order to push the great WCR fantasy.
>
> >> >> >> opportunity
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> attack McAdams.
>
> >> >> > You missed my point. ?Your question is based on the false premise
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > 'believe' or 'disbelieve' witnesses as Team McAdams does.
>
> >> >> Just to clarify, Michael asked you :
>
> >> >> favor of Judyth's story is that she has told parts of it for many
> >> >> years,
> >> >> going back to the early sixties? " and your response is that this
> >> >> question
> >> >> is based on the false premise that you 'believe' or 'disbelieve'
> >> >> witnesses.
>
> >> >> So, for example , if some witness appeared out of the woodwork &
> >> >> announced
> >> >> that Napoleon Bonaparte was alive & well & living in Rhode Island, it
> >> >> most people will find that very hard to believe, Pam. ?The suspicion
> >> >> will
> >> >> be that your 'no belief or disbelief' stance on Judyth, is just a
> >> >> 'neat '
> >> >> ( ahem) way of avoiding awkward - factual - questions.
>
> >> >> To try to nail some jello here , would you agree - for eg - that Judy
> >> >> either did or did not , as a matter of historical fact , have an
> >> >> affair
> >> >> with LHO ? Or is that kind of profoundly irritating factual question
> >> >> still
> >> >> not multi-dimensional enough for you ?
>
> >> >> paul s
>
> >> > Apparently you are unaware of a similar flap some time ago regarding
> >> > the
> >> > witnesses who said they saw a t&t bullet hole in the windshield, yet
> >> > each
> >> > insisted I must think they were 'lying'. ?It was also difficult then
> >> > for
> >> > the process I use to be acknowledged.
>
> >> I'll try again.
> >> Would you agree that Judy either did or did not , as a matter of
> >> historical
> >> fact , have an affair
> >> with LHO ?
> >> Or do you think - as seems to be the case - that she somehow , possibly,
> >> both did & didn't ?
>
> > Let me try once again as well.
>
> > In order to determine what Judyth's relationship with Lee was I look at
> > at Anna Lewis' statements about seeing Judyth and Lee together.
>
> > And I look at Marina's statements in her WCR and Shaw trial testimonies
> > where she talks about how there were many times when she didn't know where
> > Lee was, including the fact that she didn't know for nearly two weeks that
> > Lee had been fired from Reily because he just kept on acting like he was
> > going to work every day.
>
> > I also look at Lee Oswald himself, and the numerous conflicts in his
> > their relationship has been a failure in many respects. ?Is it possible
> > that Lee and Judyth were involved? ?Definitely. ?Does she know things
Howard: Are you reffering to the "Queen of Spades" here......if so please
tell me why she could not answer key questions concerning that "book".
I was in direct communications with her (aside from your objections to me)
on this and she had no knowledge of key considerations.
jko
jko
jfk...@gmail.com
I said nothing of the sort. I said the information is such that it can
only be corroborated by Marina. That means it is not going to be
discussed with anyone else prior to that.
>
> and by Anna Lewis who also has a connection to the assassination
>
> > through her husband David.
>
> Seems to be boiling down to Anna Lewis.
Only in your mind. I thought you wanted to know how I thought. I don't
care if you agree with Judyth or not.
Barb Junkkarinen
<paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
Interesting thread!
Barb :-)
>
paul seaton
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:l5km24tlunbgkj21o...@4ax.com...
Hi Barb - Yes, i thought so too :-)
Highlights :
Mary's email. The current TeamJudyth position is that Mary's PC was
hijacked and some unknown TeamAntiJudyth Swine wrote it posing as Mary F ?
True or false ? ( I honestly don't know) Everything to do with Judy seems
to turn into an immense convoluted cloak & dagger nightmare. Recall she
could hardly write her reasoned & rational responses because she was
recovering from being assaulted by a mystery white truck ? ( Driven by
another TeamAntiJudy Operative I guess).
I suppose if the MF email was written by David Lifton ( after climbing in
through the window at 3am ? Think Mission Impossible..) that would explain
why Judy thought Mary has mis-remembered just about everything about their
conversations. ?
And Judyth's explanation that she always says 'thankyou' in different
languages was fun. ( I still say it's a quirky habit ) Also the question
whether the note MF wrote for Judy had J's photo on it or not, & if it was
written diagonally or not - these things seemed to fascinate Judy in a way
a lesser mortal such as I found puzzling. I found myself trying to recall
what the point was..
By that time, I was getting vertigo..
I think i was entering Pam's Parallel Universe.. luckily the PC crashed &
I got back to reality just before the point of no return. Judy is like a
black hole.
Get too close, you can never escape :-)
Steve Thomas
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
im in lafayette right now, need me to go to ULL library and see if
they have a copy, and what color it is?
Steve Thomas
wrote:
> "howardp" <ho...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4be2ed1f-42e0-41ac...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com....
>
> Howard says:
> As for things only Marina knows, start with the Pushkin book, known only
> to Marina, the Paines, and the late Mary Ferrell. My guess is you missed
> that discussion. Even Mary's (fake)
what makes you say it was fake?
renunciation of Judyth could find no
> way to explain her knowledge of the book.
>
> Paul S replies :
> You are not good at guessing, Howard.
> See The Great Queen of Spades Debate from years ago : =>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
Steve Thomas
And we know that Marina wants nothing to do with Judyth, so what you are
saying is, you can make the allegation that Judyth knows x about Lee that
only Marina would know as many times as you want, but it will never be
confirmed, and dont ask what x is because it will only be revealed to
Marina. This is what team Judyth calls evidence hahahahahahaha, i hope no
one quit their day job over this Judyth nonsense.
> > somewhat gullible ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
jfk...@gmail.com
> "howardp" <ho...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:4be2ed1f-42e0-41ac...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
How do you define "key considerations"?
>
> jko
>
> jko
>
> Study up before you write nonsense.
>
> Howard- Hide quoted text -
Michael O'Dell
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0a06526d-5b95-4a57...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
It indicates no such thing.
> I don't believe or disbelieve witnesses. You do. Therefore 'best
> evidence' would have to be something you believe, would it not? What
> would you 'believe' as 'best evidence'?
>
No, you have it all wrong. I'm not asking what you believe, or talking
about what I believe. I'm simply asking what the best evidence is for
Judyth's story. That's a pretty fundamental question. It's not that
difficult to understand.
I've suggested what I think that is, but I'm open to someone supplying
alternatives.
What do you think is the best evidence supporting Judyth's story? Is it
the fact the she couldn't have made it up recently, or is it something
else?
Michael
Barb Junkkarinen
<paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
One of the things I love about you is that way you have of making a
point with quite a turn of phrase. It's a beautiful thing to behold.
Anybody ever tell you you're quite an artist?<g>
Mary, btw, once told me, in person, that J is a nut. She was known for
having a certain flair for words too.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> On 14 May 2008 22:50:28 -0400, "paul seaton"
>
>
> >"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:l5km24tlunbgkj21o...@4ax.com...
> >> On 13 May 2008 10:37:34 -0400, "paul seaton"
>
> >>>"howardp" <ho...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:4be2ed1f-42e0-41ac...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com....
>
> >>>Howard says:
> >>>As for things only Marina knows, start with the Pushkin book, known only
> >>>to Marina, the Paines, and the late Mary Ferrell. My guess is you missed
> >>>that discussion. Even Mary's (fake) renunciation of Judyth could find no
> >>>way to explain her knowledge of the book.
>
> >>>Paul S replies :
> >>>You are not good at guessing, Howard.
> >>>See The Great Queen of Spades Debate from years ago : =>
That was a Mary Ferrell impersonator you spoke with. Check the
headers.
Dave
paul seaton
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8e872c81-b387-46d2...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 13, 9:37 am, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
wrote:
> "howardp" <ho...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4be2ed1f-42e0-41ac...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com....
>
> Howard says:
> As for things only Marina knows, start with the Pushkin book, known only
> to Marina, the Paines, and the late Mary Ferrell. My guess is you missed
> that discussion. Even Mary's (fake)
what makes you say it was fake?
##PS says : The claim from Team J was that it was somehow fake. The old
thread I referenced goes into it somewhat.
paul s
paul seaton
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:af7c6c8b-9738-48a5...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
DR said:
That was a Mary Ferrell impersonator you spoke with. Check the
headers.
#PS says : Barb - I think this guy is possibly a Dave Reitzes impersonator.
There are teams of impersonators working shifts on this one. It get's
confusing.
Check my headers. I may not be me ..
Martin Shackelford
the volume in the university library bore no resemblance to the one
in Ruth Paine's possession.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:l5km24tlunbgkj21o...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
discussed numerous times here.
When we met in New Orleans, however, I TALKED WITH HER FIRST,
and at some length, before she and Judyth did more than exchange a short
greeting.
Another researcher then interviewed her on videotape as well.
Martin
"William Yates" <william_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:78CdnVtpo8bF27TV...@earthlink.com...
howardp wrote:
> On May 12, 7:46?pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> going back to the early sixties? ?It's clearly not something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> she
>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recently.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This goes to debunk the Team McAdams fantasy that Judyth made
>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>> up in the 90's.
>>>>>>>>>>> I understand. ?That's my point.
>>>>>>>>>> I think it's obvious that some of the more "interesting" parts
>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>> made up in the 90s, especially the "bioweapons project" stuff
>>>>>>>>>> she
>>>>>>>>>> borrowed from Haslam.
>>>>>>>>>> I frankly don't know how long she has been claiming an affair
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> Oswald. ?Martin says for decades, but he hasn't produced the
>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>> on that.
>>>>>>>>>> How long this or that piece of her fantasy has been around can't
>>>>>>>>>> really be known.
>>>>>>>>>> .John
>>>>>>>>>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>>>>>>>> Hilarious from one who tries to debunk anything or anyone
>>>>>>>>> connected
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> a conspiracy in order to push the great WCR fantasy.
>>>>>>>> You still didn't answer the question. ?You just took the
>>>>>>>> opportunity
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> attack McAdams.
>>>>>>> You missed my point. ?Your question is based on the false premise
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> 'believe' or 'disbelieve' witnesses as Team McAdams does.
>>>>>> Just to clarify, Michael asked you :
>>>>>> ?"So it would be fair to say that the most compelling evidence
>>>>>> overall
>>>>>> favor of Judyth's story is that she has told parts of it for many
>>>>>> years,
>>>>>> going back to the early sixties? " and your response is that this
>>>>>> question
>>>>>> is based on the false premise that you 'believe' or 'disbelieve'
>>>>>> witnesses.
>>>>>> So, for example , if some witness appeared out of the woodwork &
>>>>>> announced
>>>>>> that Napoleon Bonaparte was alive & well & living in Rhode Island, it
>>>>>> would not occur to you to either believe or disbelieve them ? ?I
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> most people will find that very hard to believe, Pam. ?The suspicion
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> be that your 'no belief or disbelief' stance on Judyth, is just a
>>>>>> 'neat '
>>>>>> ( ahem) way of avoiding awkward - factual - questions.
>>>>>> To try to nail some jello here , would you agree - for eg - that Judy
>>>>>> either did or did not , as a matter of historical fact , have an
>>>>>> affair
>>>>>> with LHO ? Or is that kind of profoundly irritating factual question
>>>>>> still
>>>>>> not multi-dimensional enough for you ?
>>>>>> paul s
>>>>> Apparently you are unaware of a similar flap some time ago regarding
>>>>> the
>>>>> witnesses who said they saw a t&t bullet hole in the windshield, yet
>>>>> each
>>>>> saw it in a different place on the windshield. ?A couple of people
>>>>> insisted I must think they were 'lying'. ?It was also difficult then
>>>>> for
>>>>> the process I use to be acknowledged.
>>>> I'll try again.
>>>> Would you agree that Judy either did or did not , as a matter of
>>>> historical
>>>> fact , have an affair
>>>> with LHO ?
>>>> Or do you think - as seems to be the case - that she somehow ,
>>>> possibly,
>>>> both did & didn't ?
>>> Let me try once again as well.
>>> In order to determine what Judyth's relationship with Lee was I look at
>>> what Judyth has said, and then what others around her have said. ?I look
>>> at Anna Lewis' statements about seeing Judyth and Lee together.
>>> And I look at Marina's statements in her WCR and Shaw trial testimonies
>>> where she talks about how there were many times when she didn't know
>>> where
>>> Lee was, including the fact that she didn't know for nearly two weeks
>>> that
>>> Lee had been fired from Reily because he just kept on acting like he was
>>> going to work every day.
>>> I also look at Lee Oswald himself, and the numerous conflicts in his
>>> actions. ?I ask why he was sending Marina back to Russia. ?It seems that
>>> their relationship has been a failure in many respects. ?Is it possible
>>> that Lee and Judyth were involved? ?Definitely. ?Does she know things
Martin Shackelford
second agents, and to Howard and myself before she ever did any
"extensive research" into the period.
Martin
"William Yates" <william_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:78CdnVppo8ZQ2rTV...@earthlink.com...
Martin Shackelford
What was said was that Marina provided personal information on Oswald
to two female researchers who became close to her. Those two said that
Judyth knew things about Oswald that Marina had told them in confidence.
Both researchers concluded that the part of her account which involved an
affair with Oswald was true.
None of this involves the requirement of a Judyth-Marina meeting.
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:42256fe8-4753-4479...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
received an attachment which was substituted for an existing document on
Mary's computer with the same title, attached it to the e-mail, and sent it
out
from Mary's computer. Mary recognized the name of the attachment, but said
it wasn't the content of her document of that name. Mary told this to three
people, and then confirmed it several days later to several other people.
Your
attempt to turn it into something convoluted is typical.
Martin
"paul seaton" <paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:482b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Martin Shackelford
had,
which was a grey softcover.
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4d1546f7-2630-48b6...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 13, 9:36 am, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
wrote:
> "howardp" <ho...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4be2ed1f-42e0-41ac...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 12, 7:46?pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
> > >> >> >> >> >>> going back to the early sixties? ?It's clearly not
> > >> >> >> >> >>> something
> > >> >> >> >> >>> she
> > >> >> >> >> >>> made
> > >> >> >> >> >>> up
> > >> >> >> >> >>> recently.
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> This goes to debunk the Team McAdams fantasy that Judyth
> > >> >> >> >> >> made
> > >> >> >> >> >> everything
> > >> >> >> >> >> up in the 90's.
>
> > >> >> >> >> >I understand. ?That's my point.
>
> > >> >> >> >> I think it's obvious that some of the more "interesting"
> > >> >> >> >> parts
> > >> >> >> >> were
> > >> >> >> >> made up in the 90s, especially the "bioweapons project"
> > >> >> >> >> stuff
> > >> >> >> >> she
> > >> >> >> >> borrowed from Haslam.
>
> > >> >> >> >> I frankly don't know how long she has been claiming an
> > >> >> >> >> affair
> > >> >> >> >> with
> > >> >> >> >> Oswald. ?Martin says for decades, but he hasn't produced the
> > >> >> >> >> evidence
> > >> >> >> >> on that.
>
> > >> >> >> >> How long this or that piece of her fantasy has been around
> > >> >> >> >> can't
> > >> >> >> >> really be known.
>
> > >> >> >> >> .John
> > >> >> >> >> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> > >> >> >> > Hilarious from one who tries to debunk anything or anyone
> > >> >> >> > connected
> > >> >> >> > to
> > >> >> >> > a conspiracy in order to push the great WCR fantasy.
>
> > >> >> >> You still didn't answer the question. ?You just took the
> > >> >> >> opportunity
> > >> >> >> to
> > >> >> >> attack McAdams.
>
> > >> >> > You missed my point. ?Your question is based on the false
> > >> >> > premise
> > >> >> > that
> > >> >> > I
> > >> >> > 'believe' or 'disbelieve' witnesses as Team McAdams does.
>
> > >> >> Just to clarify, Michael asked you :
>
> > >> >> ?"So it would be fair to say that the most compelling evidence
> > >> >> overall
> > >> >> favor of Judyth's story is that she has told parts of it for many
> > >> >> years,
> > >> >> going back to the early sixties? " and your response is that this
> > >> >> question
> > >> >> is based on the false premise that you 'believe' or 'disbelieve'
> > >> >> witnesses.
>
> > >> >> So, for example , if some witness appeared out of the woodwork &
> > >> >> announced
> > >> >> that Napoleon Bonaparte was alive & well & living in Rhode Island,
> > >> >> it
> > >> >> would not occur to you to either believe or disbelieve them ? ?I
> > >> >> think
> > >> >> most people will find that very hard to believe, Pam. ?The
> > >> >> suspicion
> > >> >> will
> > >> >> be that your 'no belief or disbelief' stance on Judyth, is just a
> > >> >> 'neat '
> > >> >> ( ahem) way of avoiding awkward - factual - questions.
>
> > >> >> To try to nail some jello here , would you agree - for eg - that
> > >> >> Judy
> > >> >> either did or did not , as a matter of historical fact , have an
> > >> >> affair
> > >> >> with LHO ? Or is that kind of profoundly irritating factual
> > >> >> question
> > >> >> still
> > >> >> not multi-dimensional enough for you ?
>
> > >> >> paul s
>
> > >> > Apparently you are unaware of a similar flap some time ago
> > >> > regarding
> > >> > the
> > >> > witnesses who said they saw a t&t bullet hole in the windshield,
> > >> > yet
> > >> > each
> > >> > saw it in a different place on the windshield. ?A couple of people
> > >> > insisted I must think they were 'lying'. ?It was also difficult
> > >> > then
> > >> > for
> > >> > the process I use to be acknowledged.
>
> > >> I'll try again.
> > >> Would you agree that Judy either did or did not , as a matter of
> > >> historical
> > >> fact , have an affair
> > >> with LHO ?
> > >> Or do you think - as seems to be the case - that she somehow ,
> > >> possibly,
> > >> both did & didn't ?
>
> > > Let me try once again as well.
>
> > > In order to determine what Judyth's relationship with Lee was I look
> > > at
> > > what Judyth has said, and then what others around her have said. ?I
> > > look
> > > at Anna Lewis' statements about seeing Judyth and Lee together.
>
> > > And I look at Marina's statements in her WCR and Shaw trial
> > > testimonies
> > > where she talks about how there were many times when she didn't know
> > > where
> > > Lee was, including the fact that she didn't know for nearly two weeks
> > > that
> > > Lee had been fired from Reily because he just kept on acting like he
> > > was
> > > going to work every day.
>
> > > I also look at Lee Oswald himself, and the numerous conflicts in his
> > > actions. ?I ask why he was sending Marina back to Russia. ?It seems
> > > that
> > > their relationship has been a failure in many respects. ?Is it
> > > possible
> > > that Lee and Judyth were involved? ?Definitely. ?Does she know things
Martin Shackelford
library and discovered they had an edition of the book there--but when
asked about the color of the cover, had to admit it wasn't grey.
Similar isn't enough--the color was the important factor.
Martin
"paul seaton" <paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:48294f18$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "howardp" <ho...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4be2ed1f-42e0-41ac...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 12, 7:46?pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> going back to the early sixties? ?It's clearly not
>> >> >> >> >> >>> something
>> >> >> >> >> >>> she
>> >> >> >> >> >>> made
>> >> >> >> >> >>> up
>> >> >> >> >> >>> recently.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> This goes to debunk the Team McAdams fantasy that Judyth
>> >> >> >> >> >> made
>> >> >> >> >> >> everything
>> >> >> >> >> >> up in the 90's.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >I understand. ?That's my point.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> I think it's obvious that some of the more "interesting"
>> >> >> >> >> parts
>> >> >> >> >> were
>> >> >> >> >> made up in the 90s, especially the "bioweapons project" stuff
>> >> >> >> >> she
>> >> >> >> >> borrowed from Haslam.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> I frankly don't know how long she has been claiming an affair
>> >> >> >> >> with
>> >> >> >> >> Oswald. ?Martin says for decades, but he hasn't produced the
>> >> >> >> >> evidence
>> >> >> >> >> on that.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> How long this or that piece of her fantasy has been around
>> >> >> >> >> can't
>> >> >> >> >> really be known.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> .John
>> >> >> >> >> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> >> >> >> > Hilarious from one who tries to debunk anything or anyone
>> >> >> >> > connected
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> > a conspiracy in order to push the great WCR fantasy.
>>
>> >> >> >> You still didn't answer the question. ?You just took the
>> >> >> >> opportunity
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> attack McAdams.
>>
>> >> >> > You missed my point. ?Your question is based on the false premise
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > 'believe' or 'disbelieve' witnesses as Team McAdams does.
>>
>> >> >> Just to clarify, Michael asked you :
>>
>> >> >> ?"So it would be fair to say that the most compelling evidence
>> >> >> overall
>> >> >> favor of Judyth's story is that she has told parts of it for many
>> >> >> years,
>> >> >> going back to the early sixties? " and your response is that this
>> >> >> question
>> >> >> is based on the false premise that you 'believe' or 'disbelieve'
>> >> >> witnesses.
>>
>> >> >> So, for example , if some witness appeared out of the woodwork &
>> >> >> announced
>> >> >> that Napoleon Bonaparte was alive & well & living in Rhode Island,
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> would not occur to you to either believe or disbelieve them ? ?I
>> >> >> think
>> >> >> most people will find that very hard to believe, Pam. ?The
>> >> >> suspicion
>> >> >> will
>> >> >> be that your 'no belief or disbelief' stance on Judyth, is just a
>> >> >> 'neat '
>> >> >> ( ahem) way of avoiding awkward - factual - questions.
>>
>> >> >> To try to nail some jello here , would you agree - for eg - that
>> >> >> Judy
>> >> >> either did or did not , as a matter of historical fact , have an
>> >> >> affair
>> >> >> with LHO ? Or is that kind of profoundly irritating factual
>> >> >> question
>> >> >> still
>> >> >> not multi-dimensional enough for you ?
>>
>> >> >> paul s
>>
>> >> > Apparently you are unaware of a similar flap some time ago regarding
>> >> > the
>> >> > witnesses who said they saw a t&t bullet hole in the windshield, yet
>> >> > each
>> >> > saw it in a different place on the windshield. ?A couple of people
>> >> > insisted I must think they were 'lying'. ?It was also difficult then
>> >> > for
>> >> > the process I use to be acknowledged.
>>
>> >> I'll try again.
>> >> Would you agree that Judy either did or did not , as a matter of
>> >> historical
>> >> fact , have an affair
>> >> with LHO ?
>> >> Or do you think - as seems to be the case - that she somehow ,
>> >> possibly,
>> >> both did & didn't ?
>>
>> > Let me try once again as well.
>>
>> > In order to determine what Judyth's relationship with Lee was I look at
>> > what Judyth has said, and then what others around her have said. ?I
>> > look
>> > at Anna Lewis' statements about seeing Judyth and Lee together.
>>
>> > And I look at Marina's statements in her WCR and Shaw trial testimonies
>> > where she talks about how there were many times when she didn't know
>> > where
>> > Lee was, including the fact that she didn't know for nearly two weeks
>> > that
>> > Lee had been fired from Reily because he just kept on acting like he
>> > was
>> > going to work every day.
>>
>> > I also look at Lee Oswald himself, and the numerous conflicts in his
>> > actions. ?I ask why he was sending Marina back to Russia. ?It seems
>> > that
>> > their relationship has been a failure in many respects. ?Is it possible
>> > that Lee and Judyth were involved? ?Definitely. ?Does she know things
Martin Shackelford
In addition to Anna Lewis, there was also Mac McCullough, who has
been repeatedly mentioned here.
Martin
"paul seaton" <paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:4829...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Barb Junkkarinen
>On May 15, 12:05?am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>> >True or false ? ( I honestly don't know) ?Everything to do with Judy seems
ROTFL! She didn't have any headers, but she had a purse with her.<g>
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:af7c6c8b-9738-48a5...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>On May 15, 12:05?am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>> >True or false ? ( I honestly don't know) ?Everything to do with Judy
There are days like that! <g>
Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Judyth FOUND her, so obviously she talked with her first. That's been
>discussed numerous times here.
>When we met in New Orleans, however, I TALKED WITH HER FIRST,
>and at some length, before she and Judyth did more than exchange a short
>greeting.
But they had already talked "first." Because you talked to her before
Judyth did in NO, at whatever length, doesn't mchange that, Martin.
Geesh.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>However interesting you might find the thread Barb, the fact is that
>the volume in the university library bore no resemblance to the one
>in Ruth Paine's possession.
>
>Martin
That would be the volume (as well as the JFK volumes) that Judyth said
the library there did ot have ... but someone checked and discovgered
they did have.
Uh-huh.
Barb :-)
>nh0gsr...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>The e-mail was written by Mary, then someone with access to Mary's computer
>received an attachment which was substituted for an existing document on
>Mary's computer with the same title, attached it to the e-mail, and sent it
>out
>from Mary's computer. Mary recognized the name of the attachment, but said
>it wasn't the content of her document of that name. Mary told this to three
>people, and then confirmed it several days later to several other people.
>Your
>attempt to turn it into something convoluted is typical.
>
>Martin
Your tale is about as convoluted as this could get!
Why would someone with access to Mary's computer need some attachment?
Oy.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>She had provided her account to her son, to her professor, to her first and
>second agents, and to Howard and myself before she ever did any
>"extensive research" into the period.
Because she says so.
Typical Team Judyth "evidence."
Barb :-)
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> However interesting you might find the thread Barb, the fact is that
> the volume in the university library bore no resemblance to the one
> in Ruth Paine's possession.
That isn't going to be helpful to someone only looking for dirt.
>
> Martin
>
> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:l5km24tlunbgkj21o...@4ax.com...
>
> > On 13 May 2008 10:37:34 -0400, "paul seaton"
> > <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
> >>"howardp" <ho...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>news:4be2ed1f-42e0-41ac...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com....
>
> >>Howard says:
> >>As for things only Marina knows, start with the Pushkin book, known only
> >>to Marina, the Paines, and the late Mary Ferrell. My guess is you missed
> >>that discussion. Even Mary's (fake) renunciation of Judyth could find no
> >>way to explain her knowledge of the book.
>
> >>Paul S replies :
> >>You are not good at guessing, Howard.
> >>See The Great Queen of Spades Debate from years ago : =>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
jfk...@gmail.com
Since you are comfortable dismissing what I say, it is evident that you
are asking me to be a mind reader and come up with something you will find
believable. I don't care what you think or whether you agree with Judyth
or not.
paul seaton
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ljTWj.3150$ah4....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
> The e-mail was written by Mary, then someone with access to Mary's
> computer
> received an attachment which was substituted for an existing document on
> Mary's computer with the same title, attached it to the e-mail, and sent
> it out
> from Mary's computer. Mary recognized the name of the attachment, but said
> it wasn't the content of her document of that name. Mary told this to
> three
> people, and then confirmed it several days later to several other people.
> Your
> attempt to turn it into something convoluted is typical.
??? Doesn't sound like I need to turn it into something convoluted ... it
just is pretty convoluted, Martin, the way you tell it . =>
>The e-mail was written by Mary, then someone with access to Mary's computer
> received an attachment
who is this someone ? Why did they have an email account on Mary's
computer ? Who did they recieve this attachment from ? Why did was this
new attachment written as if it had been written by Mary Ferrell ?
> which was substituted for an existing document on Mary's computer with the
> same title,
..sorry... what ?? How was it 'substituted' ? You mean someone
accidentally substituted another doc for the one Mary had saved , before
Mary sent her original email ?
Why is all this so COMPLEX and confusing Martin ? Most people don't have
other unknown people coming in , pretending to be them , and substituting
new attachments to emails they haven't sent yet . I can confirm it has
never happened to me even once. Maybe I'm just lucky.
and sent it
> out
> from Mary's computer.
Wow this mystery person is pretty sneaky. So it was all an undercover
operation to create a fake denunciation of J by Mary F, and email it to
John McA ?
Where is your evidence that it wasn't just a normal email sent by Mary F
in the usual boring non-covert-ops kind of way we have come to know & love
? presumably you have something concrete to back up the ( on the face of
it ) ludicrously far fetched scenario you are pushing ?
James K. Olmstead
consideration of the facts asked of Judyth is or was some attack.
jko
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2bcbb4f1-b8a6-4885...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
William Yates
> Judyth FOUND her, so obviously she talked with her first. That's been
> discussed numerous times here.
> When we met in New Orleans, however, I TALKED WITH HER FIRST,
> and at some length, before she and Judyth did more than exchange a short
> greeting.
> Another researcher then interviewed her on videotape as well.
>
> Martin
And Judyth talking to Anna first means we have no way of knowing how much
of what Anna says is corroboration and how much is collaboration.
Steve Thomas
wrote:
> No one has said anything like this, Steve. This is a pure strawman summary.
> What was said was that Marina provided personal information on Oswald
> to two female researchers who became close to her. Those two said that
> Judyth knew things about Oswald that Marina had told them in confidence.
More unnamed "researchers" huh? Last time you pulled this i had to call
Adrian Alba. He said your unnamed "researcher" was full of bull. Unsourced
claims made by Team Judyth carry no weight these days Shack FYI. Here is a
question for ya though, why do you keep saying there are loads of
people/researchers who believe Judyth, and Howard says the opposite?
> Both researchers concluded that the part of her account which involved an
> affair with Oswald was true.
So you claim, just who are there "researchers"?
> None of this involves the requirement of a Judyth-Marina meeting.
>
> Martin
>
> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Steve Thomas
wrote:
> On 15 May 2008 10:43:13 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> >The e-mail was written by Mary, then someone with access to Mary's computer
> >received an attachment which was substituted for an existing document on
> >Mary's computer with the same title, attached it to the e-mail, and sent it
> >out
> >from Mary's computer. Mary recognized the name of the attachment, but said
> >it wasn't the content of her document of that name. Mary told this to three
> >people, and then confirmed it several days later to several other people.
> >Your
> >attempt to turn it into something convoluted is typical.
>
> >Martin
>
> Your tale is about as convoluted as this could get!
>
> Why would someone with access to Mary's computer need some attachment?
This is tooooo funny, does Martin have any evidence to back up this
claim?
>
> Oy.
>
> Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> >"paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
> >news:482b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> >> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:l5km24tlunbgkj21o...@4ax.com...
> >>> On 13 May 2008 10:37:34 -0400, "paul seaton"
> >>> <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>"howardp" <ho...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:4be2ed1f-42e0-41ac...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com....
>
> >>>>Howard says:
> >>>>As for things only Marina knows, start with the Pushkin book, known only
> >>>>to Marina, the Paines, and the late Mary Ferrell. My guess is you missed
> >>>>that discussion. Even Mary's (fake) renunciation of Judyth could find no
> >>>>way to explain her knowledge of the book.
>
> >>>>Paul S replies :
> >>>>You are not good at guessing, Howard.
> >>>>See The Great Queen of Spades Debate from years ago : =>
> >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
> >> Get too close, you can never escape :-)- Hide quoted text -
Steve Thomas
wrote:
> On 15 May 2008 10:40:16 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> >Judyth FOUND her, so obviously she talked with her first. That's been
> >discussed numerous times here.
> >When we met in New Orleans, however, I TALKED WITH HER FIRST,
> >and at some length, before she and Judyth did more than exchange a short
> >greeting.
>
> But they had already talked "first." Because you talked to her before
> Judyth did in NO, at whatever length, doesn't mchange that, Martin.
> Geesh.
>
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa does he seriously think anyone buys this
crap?
> Barb :-)
>
>
>
> >Another researcher then interviewed her on videotape as well.
>
> >Martin
>
> >"William Yates" <william_yates...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> Howard- Hide quoted text -
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Martin Shackelford wrote:
> > Judyth FOUND her, so obviously she talked with her first. That's been
> > discussed numerous times here.
> > When we met in New Orleans, however, I TALKED WITH HER FIRST,
> > and at some length, before she and Judyth did more than exchange a short
> > greeting.
> > Another researcher then interviewed her on videotape as well.
>
> > Martin
>
> And Judyth talking to Anna first means we have no way of knowing how much
> of what Anna says is corroboration and how much is collaboration.
>
Yet you will jump on any tidbit of gossip Barb provides. So your
fastidiousness is, shall we say, negotiable.
>
> > "William Yates" <william_yates...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
jfk...@gmail.com
> Pam: You would not understand....you are so convinced that any
> consideration of the facts asked of Judyth is or was some attack.
Nice dodge. Guess you don't have anything to back up your statement.
>
> jko
>
> <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2bcbb4f1-b8a6-4885...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
You wouldn't be the first to say so.
It get's
> confusing.
> Check my headers. I may not be me ..
I keep my IP address on me at all times, just in case I get lost.
Dave