.John expresses a (somewhat) coherent objection to Judyth's *bioweapon* statement
Pamela McElwain-Brown
book "Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus" that Judyth's statements
about being involved with a *bioweapon* were derived from this book:
QUOTE ON
So I'd say it's pretty obvious where she got all this "bioweapon"
stuff.
QOOTE OFF
Full text:
.John, could you clarify your position? Are you saying that Judyth
*quotes* from this book? Are you saying that Judyth never discussed a
bioweapon before this book came out? What, other than this
generalized imputation of fraud on Judyth's part are you attempting to
convey?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
070104/1:15p
For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com.
Also, for more detailed limo-centric questions and requests, please join jfk100x on Yahoogroups.com.
For information about my life away from research, visit www.themagicflute.org
John McAdams
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Here .John claims, on the basis that Judyth may have reviewed Haslam's
>book "Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus" that Judyth's statements
>about being involved with a *bioweapon* were derived from this book:
>
>QUOTE ON
>
>So I'd say it's pretty obvious where she got all this "bioweapon"
>stuff.
>
>QOOTE OFF
>
>Full text:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=mary+ferrie+virus&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3a384d26.6233331%40news.primenet.com&rnum=8
>
>.John, could you clarify your position? Are you saying that Judyth
>*quotes* from this book? Are you saying that Judyth never discussed a
>bioweapon before this book came out? What, other than this
>generalized imputation of fraud on Judyth's part are you attempting to
>convey?
>
Simple, Pamela, as I mention on my web page.
The Haslam book is silly. It's absurd to believe that the CIA would
carry on a bioweapons project in the apartments (heavey help us!) of
people in New Orleans.
It's silly to believe that Dave Ferry was any kind of cancer
researcher.
So just how is Judyth's story so much like Haslam's?
Simple, she borrowed key points of her story from Haslam.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Rich DellaRosa
(in article <68l8e05g84qt5pu37...@4ax.com>):
As I mentioned recently, Judyth and Ed Haslam are both from Bradenton
Florida. Regardless when the book came out, the question remains do they
know each other?
Judyth has demonstrated an ability to insert herself in books she reads.
She has also done so with Priscilla McMillan's "Marina & Lee."
We were waiting for her to read John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" and
read how she moved from Oklahoma to California to become a fruit picker.
Rich
Barb Junkkarinen
<richde...@verizon.net> wrote:
Small world! But the book came out in 1995 ... as far as I know, that
was well before Judyth emerged ...
>
>Judyth has demonstrated an ability to insert herself in books she reads.
>She has also done so with Priscilla McMillan's "Marina & Lee."
>
>We were waiting for her to read John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" and
>read how she moved from Oklahoma to California to become a fruit picker.
ROTFL!
Barb :-)
>
>Rich
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>On 1 Jul 2004 16:04:47 -0400, Pamela McElwain-Brown
><pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Here .John claims, on the basis that Judyth may have reviewed Haslam's
>>book "Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus" that Judyth's statements
>>about being involved with a *bioweapon* were derived from this book:
>>
>>QUOTE ON
>>
>>So I'd say it's pretty obvious where she got all this "bioweapon"
>>stuff.
>>
>>QOOTE OFF
>>
>>Full text:
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=mary+ferrie+virus&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3a384d26.6233331%40news.primenet.com&rnum=8
>>
>>.John, could you clarify your position? Are you saying that Judyth
>>*quotes* from this book? Are you saying that Judyth never discussed a
>>bioweapon before this book came out? What, other than this
>>generalized imputation of fraud on Judyth's part are you attempting to
>>convey?
>>
>
>Simple, Pamela, as I mention on my web page.
I am attempting to understand your logic .John.
>
>The Haslam book is silly.
In your opinion?
> It's absurd to believe that the CIA would
>carry on a bioweapons project in the apartments (heavey help us!) of
>people in New Orleans.
Another opinion? After the CIA fish toxin expose I don't think much of
anything they would be capable of qualifies as *absurd* .
>
>It's silly to believe that Dave Ferry was any kind of cancer
>researcher.
Opinion again? Are you denying that his apartment was full of mice? Are
you implying they were his pets?
>
>So just how is Judyth's story so much like Haslam's?
I guess that's where I'm going with this. However, you've got a catch-22
with this book as I see it. If things are *similar* you can say they're
*borrowed*; if they are different, then Judyth is what -- creating a
*story*?
>Simple, she borrowed key points of her story from Haslam.
You are using opinion on which to base your *logic* and then forming your
*conclusion* from the fallacy of guilt by association?
What *key points* do you believe Judyth *borrowed* from Haslam?
Oh wait, that brings up another fallacy, doesn't it? The fallacy of false
alternatives? Either Judyth is *borrowing* or *lying*? Just how have you
defined your expectations for if she is telling the truth? (No circular
reasoning allowed. :-))
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Pamela McElwain-Brown
<richde...@verizon.net> wrote:
You seem to be moving closer to something Rich, but I'm not sure what. Are
you saying that if they *know* each other neither of them can be telling
the truth?
>
>Judyth has demonstrated an ability to insert herself in books she reads.
>She has also done so with Priscilla McMillan's "Marina & Lee."
She may also be part of the WC, if that photo of LHO passing out leaflets
happens to show her in the background.
If you want to make a point, other than state your opinion and imply
that's enough, you might want to cite something or mention something
specific?
>
>We were waiting for her to read John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" and
>read how she moved from Oklahoma to California to become a fruit picker.
Well that's just insulting and irrelevant. And you haven't referenced
anything to prove your point that I could, for example, independently
research.
So, at this point, what I'm not finding credible is your argument. :-)
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 1 Jul 2004 18:03:56 -0500, Rich DellaRosa
><richde...@verizon.net> wrote:
[.....]
>If you want to make a point, other than state your opinion and imply
>that's enough, you might want to cite something or mention something
>specific?
Great advice, Pamela! You might listen to the little voice saying that
yourself ... not only as regards your commentary on Judyth, but on the
Frzier limo thing ... and especially as regards your unsupported
(inexplained even!) claims about the Secret Service having an "agenda"
and having "sanitized" the limo as still appears on your web site.
[......]
> And you haven't referenced
>anything to prove your point that I could, for example, independently
>research.
Ditto for this one!
>
>So, at this point, what I'm not finding credible is your argument. :-)
And this one.
Perhaps you could move to a protocol more conducive to proper
research, evaluation and discussion. :-)
>
>Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
>For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine
>SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com. Also, for more detailed limo-centric
>questions and requests, please join jfk100x on Yahoogroups.com. For
>information about my life away from research, visit www.themagicflute.org
Barb :-)
John McAdams
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 1 Jul 2004 21:24:30 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
>wrote:
>
>>On 1 Jul 2004 16:04:47 -0400, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>><pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Here .John claims, on the basis that Judyth may have reviewed Haslam's
>>>book "Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus" that Judyth's statements
>>>about being involved with a *bioweapon* were derived from this book:
>>>
>>>QUOTE ON
>>>
>>>So I'd say it's pretty obvious where she got all this "bioweapon"
>>>stuff.
>>>
>>>QOOTE OFF
>>>
>>>Full text:
>>>
>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=mary+ferrie+virus&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3a384d26.6233331%40news.primenet.com&rnum=8
>>>
>>>.John, could you clarify your position? Are you saying that Judyth
>>>*quotes* from this book? Are you saying that Judyth never discussed a
>>>bioweapon before this book came out? What, other than this
>>>generalized imputation of fraud on Judyth's part are you attempting to
>>>convey?
>>>
>>
>>Simple, Pamela, as I mention on my web page.
>
>I am attempting to understand your logic .John.
>
>>
>>The Haslam book is silly.
>
>In your opinion?
>
It pretty much everybody's opinion.
>> It's absurd to believe that the CIA would
>>carry on a bioweapons project in the apartments (heavey help us!) of
>>people in New Orleans.
>
>Another opinion? After the CIA fish toxin expose I don't think much of
>anything they would be capable of qualifies as *absurd* .
>
That's just silly. They *had* toxins that would kill Castro. The
problem was to get them delivered.
And when they wanted scientific research done, they had first rate
researchers and first-rate facilities.
>>
>>It's silly to believe that Dave Ferry was any kind of cancer
>>researcher.
>
>Opinion again? Are you denying that his apartment was full of mice? Are
>you implying they were his pets?
>
There were no rats in the summer of 1963.
Ferrie had only a mail order degree from a university in Italy. He
just wasn't a cancer researcher.
>>
>>So just how is Judyth's story so much like Haslam's?
>
>I guess that's where I'm going with this. However, you've got a catch-22
>with this book as I see it. If things are *similar* you can say they're
>*borrowed*; if they are different, then Judyth is what -- creating a
>*story*?
>
>>Simple, she borrowed key points of her story from Haslam.
>
>You are using opinion on which to base your *logic* and then forming your
>*conclusion* from the fallacy of guilt by association?
>
>What *key points* do you believe Judyth *borrowed* from Haslam?
>
AIDS. Sherman and Ferrie. CIA bioweapons research.
>Oh wait, that brings up another fallacy, doesn't it? The fallacy of false
>alternatives? Either Judyth is *borrowing* or *lying*? Just how have you
>defined your expectations for if she is telling the truth? (No circular
>reasoning allowed. :-))
>
Pamela, the whole notion of a CIA bioweapons project in a couple of
apartments in New Orleans, staffed by people like Ferrie, Judyth and
Lee, is absurd.
.John
Pamela McElwain-Brown
McAdams) wrote:
Untrue and you know it. "Everybody" consists of the WC-apologists who
are wearing blinders. Not a large group.
>
>
>>> It's absurd to believe that the CIA would
>>>carry on a bioweapons project in the apartments (heavey help us!) of
>>>people in New Orleans.
>>
>>Another opinion? After the CIA fish toxin expose I don't think much of
>>anything they would be capable of qualifies as *absurd* .
>>
>
>That's just silly. They *had* toxins that would kill Castro. The
>problem was to get them delivered.
The fish toxins were pretty silly too, but they are documented.
>
>And when they wanted scientific research done, they had first rate
>researchers and first-rate facilities.
Again, your opinion.
>
>>>
>>>It's silly to believe that Dave Ferry was any kind of cancer
>>>researcher.
>>
>>Opinion again? Are you denying that his apartment was full of mice? Are
>>you implying they were his pets?
>>
>
>There were no rats in the summer of 1963.
And your source for that is ???
>
>Ferrie had only a mail order degree from a university in Italy. He
>just wasn't a cancer researcher.
Correction -- he wasn't what you would consider a cancer researcher;
yes?
>
>
>>>
>>>So just how is Judyth's story so much like Haslam's?
>>
>>I guess that's where I'm going with this. However, you've got a catch-22
>>with this book as I see it. If things are *similar* you can say they're
>>*borrowed*; if they are different, then Judyth is what -- creating a
>>*story*?
>>
>>>Simple, she borrowed key points of her story from Haslam.
>>
>>You are using opinion on which to base your *logic* and then forming your
>>*conclusion* from the fallacy of guilt by association?
>>
>>What *key points* do you believe Judyth *borrowed* from Haslam?
>>
>
>AIDS. Sherman and Ferrie. CIA bioweapons research.
Again, your opinion.
In addition, what Judyth herself says may not parrot the Haslam book.
I don't have a copy of it yet, so can't reference it. Seems I'm
looking at a 2 month or more wait through Amazon. :-0
>
>
>>Oh wait, that brings up another fallacy, doesn't it? The fallacy of false
>>alternatives? Either Judyth is *borrowing* or *lying*? Just how have you
>>defined your expectations for if she is telling the truth? (No circular
>>reasoning allowed. :-))
>>
>
>Pamela, the whole notion of a CIA bioweapons project in a couple of
>apartments in New Orleans, staffed by people like Ferrie, Judyth and
>Lee, is absurd.
So is "the SBT". That statememt doesn't seem to contain any kind of
logic.
No disagreement with your opinion. My concern begins when this
becomes translated into something more sinister, such as "Judyth is
borrowing" or "Judyth is a fraud".
And the issue, if you will bear with me, is that the alternative that
either Judyth or Haslam or both of them are telling the truth has been
dismissed without research because you consider it "silly". That's
fine for an opinion, but when you write a webpage or post here, one
would hope there would be something more convincing. :-)
AnthonyMarsh
>
> On 1 Jul 2004 16:04:47 -0400, Pamela McElwain-Brown
> <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Here .John claims, on the basis that Judyth may have reviewed Haslam's
> >book "Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus" that Judyth's statements
> >about being involved with a *bioweapon* were derived from this book:
> >
> >QUOTE ON
> >
> >So I'd say it's pretty obvious where she got all this "bioweapon"
> >stuff.
> >
> >QOOTE OFF
> >
> >Full text:
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?q=mary+ferrie+virus&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3a384d26.6233331%40news.primenet.com&rnum=8
> >
> >.John, could you clarify your position? Are you saying that Judyth
> >*quotes* from this book? Are you saying that Judyth never discussed a
> >bioweapon before this book came out? What, other than this
> >generalized imputation of fraud on Judyth's part are you attempting to
> >convey?
> >
>
> Simple, Pamela, as I mention on my web page.
>
> The Haslam book is silly. It's absurd to believe that the CIA would
> carry on a bioweapons project in the apartments (heavey help us!) of
> people in New Orleans.
>
Sure, just as it's absurd to believe that the CIA would carry on LSD
experiments in the apartments in ordinary apartment complexes in San
Francisco. Any such projects MUST be done in high tech labs surrounded
by guards.
> It's silly to believe that Dave Ferry was any kind of cancer
> researcher.
>
There are always various amateur researcher's out there. Didn't some
housewife try to find a cure for her son's rare disease? Something like
Lorenzo's Oil?
> So just how is Judyth's story so much like Haslam's?
>
> Simple, she borrowed key points of her story from Haslam.
>
> .John
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
AnthonyMarsh
Sure, sure. The KGB already had cyanide, so why would they develop
ricin?
You overlook the proven fact that the CIA and KGB were always looking
for more types of bioweapons.
> And when they wanted scientific research done, they had first rate
> researchers and first-rate facilities.
>
> >>
> >>It's silly to believe that Dave Ferry was any kind of cancer
> >>researcher.
> >
> >Opinion again? Are you denying that his apartment was full of mice? Are
> >you implying they were his pets?
> >
>
> There were no rats in the summer of 1963.
Great. What does that have to do with the fact that Ferrie once had lab
rats?
>
> Ferrie had only a mail order degree from a university in Italy. He
> just wasn't a cancer researcher.
And yet he got into trouble for pretending to be a doctor.
>
> >>
> >>So just how is Judyth's story so much like Haslam's?
> >
> >I guess that's where I'm going with this. However, you've got a catch-22
> >with this book as I see it. If things are *similar* you can say they're
> >*borrowed*; if they are different, then Judyth is what -- creating a
> >*story*?
> >
> >>Simple, she borrowed key points of her story from Haslam.
> >
> >You are using opinion on which to base your *logic* and then forming your
> >*conclusion* from the fallacy of guilt by association?
> >
> >What *key points* do you believe Judyth *borrowed* from Haslam?
> >
>
> AIDS. Sherman and Ferrie. CIA bioweapons research.
>
> >Oh wait, that brings up another fallacy, doesn't it? The fallacy of false
> >alternatives? Either Judyth is *borrowing* or *lying*? Just how have you
> >defined your expectations for if she is telling the truth? (No circular
> >reasoning allowed. :-))
> >
>
> Pamela, the whole notion of a CIA bioweapons project in a couple of
> apartments in New Orleans, staffed by people like Ferrie, Judyth and
> Lee, is absurd.
>
> .John
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Martin Shackelford
during that period, don't we, John?
As for your repeated claim that Judyth derived her account from Haslam,
it simply isn't true. She didn't learn of Haslam's book until well after
she had provided us with her detailed account. That you don't believe
this doesn't matter to me much one way or the other--you're only
deceiving yourself and those foolish enough to believe you.
You're not even correct that "Judyth's story is so much like Haslam's."
Clearly you haven't closely compared the two, or you would never make
such a statement. The two are like different perspectives on the same
thing, but hardly as parallel as you would have people believe.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Judyth was born and raised in Bradenton, Florida, but hasn't lived there
for a very long time.
Ed Haslam is "from" New Mexico, and only moved to Florida in 2000. If
Team Lifton doubts that, they can check with Louis Girdler, who provided
that information at the time in e-mails which are among the batch I've
been reviewing lately.
No "question remains," Rich, unless you don't have the facts.
We breathlessly await your "evidence," Rich, that the Girdler e-mails
have been "altered."
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Judyth MUST have know about it then, Barb. Right?
The only problem is that, as of 2000, she hadn't.
Martin
John McAdams
More effective.
>You overlook the proven fact that the CIA and KGB were always looking
>for more types of bioweapons.
>
They didn't need more to get Castro.
>> And when they wanted scientific research done, they had first rate
>> researchers and first-rate facilities.
>>
>> >>
>> >>It's silly to believe that Dave Ferry was any kind of cancer
>> >>researcher.
>> >
>> >Opinion again? Are you denying that his apartment was full of mice? Are
>> >you implying they were his pets?
>> >
>>
>> There were no rats in the summer of 1963.
>
>Great. What does that have to do with the fact that Ferrie once had lab
>rats?
>
That -- even if you believe the silly notion that he was a "cancer
researcher" -- he wasn't any such thing in the summer of 1963.
>>
>> Ferrie had only a mail order degree from a university in Italy. He
>> just wasn't a cancer researcher.
>
>And yet he got into trouble for pretending to be a doctor.
>
You think the CIA would have hired him as a doctor?
.John
--
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>The book, which almost nobody ever heard of, came out in 1995. Gee,
>Judyth MUST have know about it then, Barb. Right?
>The only problem is that, as of 2000, she hadn't.
Don't be huffy, Martin ... it makes you look desperate.
The Haslam book came out in 1995. That it predates Judyth's emergence
on the scene is a simple fact.
Whether or not Judyth was aware of it is an unknown
That Judyth hadn't heard of it as of 2000 is what Judyth has told you
and you believe her. That is fine, but it does not make it fact. And
you know that.
Barb :-)
Altasrecrd
>She may also be part of the WC, if that photo of LHO passing out leaflets
>
>happens to show her in the background.
Why don't you look at the Pizzo photo and give us an analysis, Pamela?
Altasrecrd
While it was obvious from day 1 Judyth inserted herself into Haslam's
hypothesis (Judyth's tale appeared only after he published- Surprise!), you all
should be reminded that Haslam only SPECULATED on Ferrie; the crux of his book
is solving the Mary Sherman murder; on this end, he provides as likely an
explanation as any ever given. The book is still worth buying for the insight
into that case.
Dave Reitzes
>Florida. Regardless when the book came out, the question remains do they
>know each other?
>
>Judyth has demonstrated an ability to insert herself in books she reads.
>She has also done so with Priscilla McMillan's "Marina & Lee."
>
>We were waiting for her to read John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" and
>read how she moved from Oklahoma to California to become a fruit picker.
>
>Rich
\:^)
AnthonyMarsh
Not exactly. Less traceable. Markov was originally considered to have
died from disease, not murder. He did not die instantly, as cyanide
would produce.
Are you aware that the CIA was trying to develop a poison which would
make the death appear to be just an ordinary heart attack?
>
> >You overlook the proven fact that the CIA and KGB were always looking
> >for more types of bioweapons.
> >
>
> They didn't need more to get Castro.
Sure they did. They had dozens of hair-brain schemes, none of which had
worked. They were grasping at straws.
Even at the very moment that Kennedy was being killed, the CIA was
delivering a pen with a hypodermic needle in it to its assassin at a
meeting in France.
>
> >> And when they wanted scientific research done, they had first rate
> >> researchers and first-rate facilities.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>It's silly to believe that Dave Ferry was any kind of cancer
> >> >>researcher.
> >> >
> >> >Opinion again? Are you denying that his apartment was full of mice? Are
> >> >you implying they were his pets?
> >> >
> >>
> >> There were no rats in the summer of 1963.
> >
> >Great. What does that have to do with the fact that Ferrie once had lab
> >rats?
> >
>
> That -- even if you believe the silly notion that he was a "cancer
> researcher" -- he wasn't any such thing in the summer of 1963.
>
Hmm, did I ever say that he was a licensed physician? No. He was an
amateur.
> >>
> >> Ferrie had only a mail order degree from a university in Italy. He
> >> just wasn't a cancer researcher.
> >
> >And yet he got into trouble for pretending to be a doctor.
> >
>
> You think the CIA would have hired him as a doctor?
>
Never. They may have hired him as a pilot to drop leaflets over Cuba.
Do you think that the CIA would ever hire George White as a doctor? Yet
he was in charge of their LSD tests.
http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Articles/George-White.html
> .John
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Altasrecrd
>That Judyth hadn't heard of it as of 2000 is what Judyth has told you
>and you believe her.
uh, Judyth absolutely heard of it by then.
One of the first things I asked her (spring 2000) was when she got the book.
She said she had a reciept from Amazon.com showing when she bought it. Of
course, that doesn't prove anything as to when she actually first *read* it,
just when she purchased it.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Well, then she'd obviously heard of it .... and one would expect that
someone who had actually been involved in the scenario in the book
would't be able to wait to dive in ... I know I wouldn't.
If she didn't recall in the Spring of 2000 when she got the book ....
and would have to check her receipt ... then that would seem, for most
people anyway, that it hadn't been anytime recent .... not relatively
recent anyway, imo.
Maybe she can produce the receipt??
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
account and documents before I made her aware of the existence of
Haslam's book. Her account doesn't actually follow Haslam's version
anyway, but they overlap to a degree. John flipped the chronology,
ignored the differences, and offered us the simple-minded formula that
Judyth copied Haslam.
Martin
Pamela McElwain-Brown
What are you "for", Reitzes?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
Can you give us an example, Matt?
Based on what I know, which is not everything, and I don't have a copy
of the book yet, it doesn't seem that Judyth *borrows* from anyone.
Her statements are very specific and detailed. If anything, it seems
the sheer volume of details are overwhelming (which doesn't mean they
aren't accurate necessarily) Have you considered the possibility that
what Haslam describes and what Judyth experienced are parallel?
Another example of that, and someone I was initially so confused by
that I spent some time after her presentation just shaking my head in
bewilderment and walking around in a daze (but later got to know more
about and find her statements fascinating) is Dr. Adele Edisen.
Adele's story is intricate and eccentric and puzzling and at times
really bizarre, and yet it has managed to hold up pretty well imo.
In addition, if Judyth were to have *borrowed* from Haslam why would
she be so upfront and excited about it and acknowledge it? Wouldn't
it have been *smarter* to have pled ignorance in the first place?
Also, Judyth speaks with such authority (I know you may have another
word in mind :-0) about her experiences, not at all as if she is
tentatively *inserting* herself into anything, to me anyhow.
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>John has always had this backwards. I had fully obtained Judyth's
>account and documents before I made her aware of the existence of
>Haslam's book. Her account doesn't actually follow Haslam's version
>anyway, but they overlap to a degree. John flipped the chronology,
>ignored the differences, and offered us the simple-minded formula that
>Judyth copied Haslam.
>
>Martin
Martin, do you remember when it was you made Judyth aware of Haslam's
book? I think I saw you mention 2000 ... but could you narrow that
down any?
Thanks,
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
uninformed newsgroup posts--seems to be a blizzard lately from a mixture
of sources.
When I first mentioned the Haslam book to Judyth, her reactions made it
very clear that she had no idea such a book existed. Whether you choose to
believe that or not is up to you. But the idea that her account was
derived from Haslam's is complete nonsense.
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>I'm far from desperate, Barb, but I do get irritated at so many grossly
>uninformed newsgroup posts--seems to be a blizzard lately from a mixture
>of sources.
>
>When I first mentioned the Haslam book to Judyth, her reactions made it
>very clear that she had no idea such a book existed.
OIC, her "reactions" are what "made it very clear."
Martin, you once admitted, in connection with the James Files story,
that you could be conned. Not a damning admission, because all of us
can be conned from time to time.
But have you considered that maybe Judyth was conning you? If her
story was based on Haslem, she *would* be prepared to be confronted
with somebody saying "have your read Hsalem's book?"
.John
Martin Shackelford
time AFTER "day one." Nor do you have a shred of evidence that Judyth was
aware of Haslam's book before the summer of 2000.
Martin
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>I'm far from desperate, Barb, but I do get irritated at so many grossly
>uninformed newsgroup posts--seems to be a blizzard lately from a mixture
>of sources.
Yes, Yeti. :-)
>
>When I first mentioned the Haslam book to Judyth, her reactions made it
>very clear that she had no idea such a book existed. Whether you choose to
>believe that or not is up to you. But the idea that her account was
>derived from Haslam's is complete nonsense.
I never said her account was derived from Haslam's book. I know when
Haslam's book was published, I do not know when you believe Judyth
heard of that book for the first time because, like when it comes to
most things as regards Jusyth, even the simplest little tidbits that
just might help people who are trying to decide what they believe just
a leeeetle bit .... you dodge, you dance, you get huffy .... it's like
trying to nail jello to a tree.
They say the devil is in the details. Just might be the case ...
because getting any actual detail, even something simple, from you
seems to be impossible .... one way to avoid the devil, I guess ...
avoid the details.
Yesterday's e-mail from Judyth ... you know, you're copied on it ...
in it she says to "Be fair." Maybe she should suggest that
to you. :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Gee, Matt, it clearly wasn't obvious to YOU "from day one"--or for a long
>time AFTER "day one." Nor do you have a shred of evidence that Judyth was
>aware of Haslam's book before the summer of 2000.
Okay .... sooner or later .... here it is .... summer of 2000 ....
okaaaaaay....
Is it your position then that she did not write the rave review of
Haslam's book posted on Amazon on January 19, 2000?
Barb :-)
Dave Reitzes
Come on, Barb, that could be ANYONE in Louisiana named J. A. Baker.
Dave
Perpetual Starlight: Original fiction, music and more
http://www.reitzes.com
JFK Online: John F. Kennedy assassination
http://www.jfk-online.com
Judyth Baker
TOP POST
Barb, my attempt to post here a moment ago was cut off suddenly. If
there is an incomplete message, pleas eignore it. I have found a way
to post, using a new approach with google netherlands. Not sure if my
password will even work again.
Concerning Haslam's book, do understand that I did not know about
Haslam's book when Sixty Minutes first asked me for corroborating
evidence. I would have gladly offered it, because it contains a great
deal of supporting evidence and a lot about Dr. Ochsner, for example,
that I never knew.
Sixty Minutes did not hear about Haslam's book until November, 1999,
long after the first book was written, long after the agent and
Platzman began working on the teaser book. Some six months after they
began investigating the story.
That's when I finally got my hands on the book, after two months of
waiting. I did not add materials from Haslam's book to the teaser
version until the summer of 2000, to the best of my recollection.
Martin saw the material appear at that time in the manuscript. It's
easy after all these years to misremember something. What Martin WAS
certain of, and he is correct, was that I had no access to the book
before writing the version for my son and working with agent and
Platzman on what was to be sent to interested publishers.
The proof is Sixty Minutes, and the fact I could not give them a thing
about Haslam's book, not knowing a thing about Haslam's book, until
November, 1999.
Sixty Minutes loved getting the information on Haslam. They contacted
Haslam at once. I had no idea where Haslam lived, but Sixty Minutes
tracked him down. He had moved from Albuquerque, New Mexico, in fact,
to Sarasota, Florida. He later bought a house in Bradenton. By then I
hadn't lived there for ten years.
This should put to rest your question.
I will try to answer questions that are asked of me in a polite and
decent manner. I do not intend to answer any questions raised by Mr.
Reitzes, ever, for calling me a lying psychopath here in your
newsgroup. That is not an accusation of him. That is exactly what HE
said. I will not respond to anyone who is rude or disrespectful. Since
I have eye problems, sometimes I might not respond for awhile because
I can't read the posts at all. And I am not certain if I will be able
to post again. Hopefully, yes. I'll check in here again next week and
see what people have to say.
====J====
please forgive any typos. I have eye problems, unfortunately.
Judyth Baker
I do not know when you believe Judyth
> heard of that book for the first time because, like when it comes to
> most things as regards Jusyth, even the simplest little tidbits that
> just might help people who are trying to decide what they believe just
> a leeeetle bit .... you dodge, you dance, you get huffy .... it's like
> trying to nail jello to a tree.
=======Dear BarB:
Martin has kindly answered your every question. I am luckily able to
post. I dom not have time to post tomorrow and will not be able to answer
questions immediately, but I will be back from time to time.
Meanwhile, regarding Haslam's books, that helps substantiate some of my
testimony: Specifically, if I would have had the supporting information
that's in Haslam's book, especially about Dr. Ochsner, to give Sixty
Minutes, which began investigating my testimony long after I wrote both
the original and the teaser manuscripts, I would have given it to them at
once, because they were seeking evidence.
I wouldn;t have waited six months.
They did get the information when I learned of the book and finally
got a copy and read it in November, 1999. I was satisfied with the high
quality of Haslam's research and contacted Sixty Minutes when satisfied.
Material from Haslam's book supporting my testimony finally made it
into the book ---I believe that was in the summer of 2000 -- when we still
tried to save the multi-authored version. I had not wanted my more
intimate version to be seen by a publisher unless there was a response to
the teaser book, and until I got legal advice regarding mentioning the
names of persons still living.
Martin saw it incorporated into text inj the summer of 2000 as part of
my supporting evidence, and is what he remembered best from the past.
I do hope this answers your questions. Sixty Minutes contacted Edward
Haslam as soon as they learned about the book. I would have pushed
Haslam's book right under Sixty Minutes'nose after learning what it said,
if only I had the book. But I didn't have it, and everybody knows how
delighted I was to find it, and how quickly it was sent (the book itself)
to Sixty Minutes. THEY could not get a copy fast enough, so I sent the one
I had obtained after a two-plus month search and wait.
Best regards,
Judyth Vary Baker ======================
Barb Junkkarinen
No problem, Judyth ... sorry about your eye problems. Perhaps that is
why you went on about something not quite to the point about my
exchange with Martin and my last reply to him ... which is that he
stated that no one had "a shred of evidence that Judyth was
aware of Haslam's book before the summer of 2000." (still appears in
post below)
In reply, I asked him if was denying the Amazon review for the book
written by you on January 19, 2000.
You see the problem there, of course, between his claim and the date
of your Amazon review.
That is the issue.
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
account and documentation, so it wouldn't have been sooner than late 1999,
but I may have waited until early 2000--I'd have to go through a good many
file folders to narrow it down precisely.
Martin
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>I had worked with her for five or six months, at least, examining her
>account and documentation, so it wouldn't have been sooner than late 1999,
>but I may have waited until early 2000--I'd have to go through a good many
>file folders to narrow it down precisely.
>
>Martin
Well, in another post last night you said there was not one shred of
evidence that Judyth had ever seen the book before the summer of 2000.
I responded and asked about the review she posted on Amazon in January
2000. Your reply to that is probably among these posts I just called
up. But it is a tad confusing, Martin ... here you say you don't know
you'll have to check maybe late 1999 .... last night you said summer
of 2000 and not a shred of proof it was any earlier than that.
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
It also says that she didn't know about Haslam until the Fall of 1999.
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>You might want to quote a bit more from that e-mail you mention, Barb.
>It also says that she didn't know about Haslam until the Fall of 1999.
I saw that. I also saw your post to Matt (I think it was Matt) wherein
you stated that there is not a shred of evidence she ever saw the book
before the summer of 2000. The problem with that is that she posted a
review of the book on Amazon in January of 2000.
Given that you appear to be the mouthpiece and anyone interested has
to rely on what you post .... well, it kinda makes for a credibility
gap when you say one thing, Judyth says another and perhaps an old
post or interview says something different from either of you. Of
course, in this instance, it appears Judyth's Fall of 1999 would be
correct .... or at least plausible given the review....unlike your
strongly stated response to Matt (whomever).
Dave Reitzes
>It's Haslam, John--and you're the one who has been conned in this matter.
>
>Martin
Yet Martin presents no evidence to back up this striking claim.
How strange.
Dave
Martin Shackelford
1999, and then showed it to "60 Minutes." I hadn't seen your post until
tonight.
Martin
Judyth Baker
Dear Barb, and all:
I do not see my prior message posted. So here it is again, in a
nutshell:
1) Sixty Minutes asked for all the evidence I had in the summer of
1999.
2) I did not know about Haslam's book before November, 1999.
3)So they never saw or heard of Haslam's book.
4)Haslam's book has important information in it that supported my
testimony
5) Haslam himself was a witness
6) Sixty Minutes got the information in late November, 1999 and
contacted Haslam soon after that, to which he will testify.
7) I wrote the book during 1998-early 1999. There is nothing in it
about Haslam's material because I did not know it existed.
8) Had I known about Haslam's book, and since it supports my
testimony, common sense dictates I would not have waited six months
before telling Sixty Minutes producers abouit Haslam.
9) I am on record as having read the book and then contacting Sixty
Minutes with materials from the book supporting my story. They then
contacted Haslam, I believe early in 2000. Materials from Haslam's
book made it into my real book in the summer of 2000,(not the
piracy-safeguarded teaser sent around to get interest, sent to a few
publishers).
HASLAM'S BOOK WAS TOO IMPORTANT TO IGNORE. IT SUPPORTS MY TESTIMONY.
COMMON SENSE SHOULD DICTATE THAT IF I HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE BOOK, SIXTY
MINUTES WOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT IT BEFORE NOVEMBER, 1999, WELL
AFTER THE BOOK AND TEASER BOOK WERE WRITTEN. I HAD NO ACCESS TO
HASLAM'S MATERIAL. I DID NOT KNOW THE BOOK EXISTED.
I hope this clears the air. Anybody with common sense can see I didn;t
know about the book.
Best regards,
Judyth Vary Baker
Barb Junkkarinen <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<76ice01h0r0ks5v5p...@4ax.com>...
Judyth Baker
Dear Barb:
As stated elsewhere, Martin made a mistake. On the other hand, he's
been accurate almost all the time, in contrast to many others. You
wrote:
BARB: In reply, I asked him if was denying the Amazon review for the
book
written by you on January 19, 2000.
You see the problem there, of course, between his claim and the date
of your Amazon review.
That is the issue.
Barb :-)
====Barb, if I had known about Haslam's book before November, 1999, I
assure you Sixty Minutes would have had it right away, because it
supports a good deal (not all, by any means) of my own account and
also had info about Ochsner that supported my account. But they didn't
get it until I read it and recommended it in late 1999. The elements
of Haslam's account that supported my own account were added to the
teaser text in mid-2000, which Martin recalled, I think, and herein
was the error.
The bottom line is that I did not have access to Haslam's book
until well after I had written both the book and the teaser book
(safeguarded from piracy)for publishers. As soon as I read Haslam's
book, however, Sixty Minutes was notified, for much of it supported my
story. They then contacted Ed Haslam.
Of course I would not hide powerful supporting evidence offered in
a book by a researcher from the producers of Sixty Minutes. My
happiness at discovering the information in Haslam's book was made
known at once to everybody.
I can't write again for a week. this will have to do. I believe this
should clear up the problem about whether I had access to Edward
Haslam's book before writing mine. Had I had it,I of course would have
presented it to Sixty Minutes. I woukld have cited haslam in my book
to help it get published,. None of this occurred.
My Best wishes, have a great 4th of July!
Judyth Vary Baker
Barb Junkkarinen <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<9kcee01ckf068uei3...@4ax.com>...
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Judyth corrected me, reminding me that she got the book in November
>1999, and then showed it to "60 Minutes." I hadn't seen your post until
>tonight.
Okey-doke.
So she did show it to 60 Minutes. You know she told me in an e-mail
the other day that if she'd known about the book she surely would have
used it with 60 Minutes .... from what you say, she eventually did
tell them/show them ... perhaps the plug had already been pulled, or
nearly so, by then.
Barb :-)
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>TOP POST
>
>Dear Barb:
>
>As stated elsewhere, Martin made a mistake.
Yes, that's all cleared up now.
Happy 4th to you and everyone else too!
Barb :-)
R J Johnson
news:cc50d850.04070...@posting.google.com...
:
: As stated elsewhere, Martin made a mistake.
Why doesn't the rest of the "group" work with Martin on this problem of
his with admitting when he's made a mistake?
He went on forever about your "first" agent when in fact he was writing
about your second agent, Peter Cox. When finally painted in a corner on
this, he came up with convoluted nonsense about how Cox was the first one
to try to sell your story and therefore, while he was the second agent,
Martin was considering him the first?? A simple "I made a mistake" would
have been much more simple and would better serve your interests.
Martin has done this several times over the years and one has to seriously
question anyone that, for whatever reasons, has such a hard time ever
admitting they've made an error. --
---- Robert J. Johnson
Martin Shackelford
showed it to "60 Minutes" AT THE BEGINNING, rather than not until November
1999, when she finally saw it. By then, she had been in contact with "60
Minutes" for months.
Martin Shackelford
others. I only do so when I consider it a mistake--not every time one of
you guys CLAIMS I have.
Martin
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>What she SAID, Barb, was that if she had known of the book she would have
>showed it to "60 Minutes" AT THE BEGINNING, rather than not until November
>1999, when she finally saw it. By then, she had been in contact with "60
>Minutes" for months.
Not quite the way she put it but I got that drift from what she said
... except without knowing when you recalled telling her about the
book nor when the 60 Minutes stuff began ... the info didn't mean
much. Meeting hostility at every turn when just trying to get a few
facts in order isn't helpful either.
Barb
John McAdams
But "60 Minutes" might have been rather put off finding out about
Haslam, mightn't they?
Might then not have suspected that you got portions of your story from
his book?
.John
--
Judyth Baker
in response to your question about whether Sixty Minutes worried if I
had prior access to Haslam's book, etc: no. While there were overlaps
between the two accounts, Haslam provided considerable additional
unpublished evidence in his possession that he had previously been
unable to account for.
I had no access to this additional material dating back to at least
1972 but never incorporated into his book.
Sixty Minutes investigators were aware that the nature of this
unpublished evidence was, in fact, impossible to dispute. Their
enthusiasm was fired up by Haslam's additional,unpublished
information. I was told they always wanted to film the segment. I was
informed that CBS higher-ups did not want the segment filmed. I hope
this answers your question.
Best regards,
Judyth Vary Baker
john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote in message news:<40e8e563...@129.250.170.82>...
Judyth Baker
> On 4 Jul 2004 20:56:37 -0400, Martin Shackelford
> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >What she SAID, Barb, was that if she had known of the book she would have
> >showed it to "60 Minutes" AT THE BEGINNING, rather than not until November
> >1999, when she finally saw it. By then, she had been in contact with "60
> >Minutes" for months.
>
> Not quite the way she put it
Dear Barb:
I'm sorry if you misunderstood anything in my too-long message. What
Martin wrote is EXACTLY what I tried to say to you. I apologize if
there is something I wrote that you misinterpreted. Martin said it
just right. He has a gift for using few words and getting the point
across with clarity.
I'm still working on something I thought I'd have finished yesterday
and be off for vacation, so took a break and thought I'd add a few
more posts. Hope this posts. I got an internal server error just a
minute ago trying to post this.
Best regards,
Judyth Vary Baker