Why "60 Minutes" Didn't Run the Judyth Baker Segment--By "60 Minutes"
Martin Shackelford
"60 Minutes," explaining their decision not to do the segment.
It is dated October 19, 2000:
We have been looking into Judyth's story off and on, mostly on, for
fourteen months. This morning Don and I reviewed this effort. Our primary
question was whether or not all the information we had gathered could be
transformed into a 60 Minutes segment. The conclusion we reached was that
it could not. As a consequence we have called off our research.
We are sorry that you have invested so much time and effort into this
enterprise, and we will honor any financial commitments we have made. We,
too, have invested a great deal of time, and money, in this effort, more
time I believe than we have put in on any story in the 30 years I have
been here. Which makes our decision as difficult for me as I know it is
for you.
We wish you well.
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> This was the communication from the segment producer at
>
> "60 Minutes," explaining their decision not to do the segment.
>
> It is dated October 19, 2000:
IOW, don't call us, we'll call you. You don't even recognize a Kiss Off
when you see one, Shackelford. No wonder you made such a hash of the
whole Judyth business. BTW, I noticed there is no name on this message
(your usual practice of secrecy) but it really doesn't make any difference
does it? I think we all deserve some kind of medalfor putting up with
this nonsense for seven long years.
JGL
steve
wrote:
sounds like they politely told Team Judyth to take a hike.
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Thanks for posting this again, Martin.
It looks to me like a polite, "no thank."
You said they had ALL of her documentation ... but they abandoned the
project, because after reviewing all they had ... it wasn't enough.
That's basically what just about everyone else says ... there just
isn't any actual documentation for anything aside from the 2 knowns:
Reily's and her science/cancer achievements.
Barb :-)
>
Anthony Marsh
Wrong again. Also her letter to President Kennedy, which I found and you
did not. You haven't offered ANY documents.
> Barb :-)
>
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2008 20:40:26 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> It looks to me like a polite, "no thank."
> > You said they had ALL of her documentation ... but they abandoned the project, because after reviewing all they had ... it wasn't enough. That's basically what just about everyone else says ... there just isn't any actual documentation for anything aside from the 2 knowns: Reily's and her science/cancer achievements.
>
> Barb :-)
>
Barb, the reason we have heard so much about Judyth's alleged
"cancer/science achievements in high school is that she has nothing else
to point to except a summer program after graduation. In my experience,
H.S. students have neither the class time nor equipment to do serious
cancer or other research and I suspect legal liability issue would hamper
any efforts to use school facilities in off hours. Interestingly, this
self-styled teen-age Madame Curie couldn't even win the Science prize in
her H.S. grad class, as she admitted on her high school alumni page and
later deleted. Her first college degree was an AA in English, not one of
the sciences. Some 20 years later she earned a B.S. in Anthropology and
followed that up with a Masters in Creative Writing (now there's a joke).
She never earned a degree in any of the hard sciences. Like everything
else about the Judyth Baker saga, it's all a fraud.
JGL
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
I disagree. First of all, I don't think 60 Minutes or the research
community, for that matter, were able to deal with the fact that Judyth
brought with her a book that was far more than a witness statement. I
don't think there was any way to assess it -- certainly not by itself.
Secondly, it seems nobody at 60 Minutes apparently thought of researching
around Judyth's statements. Marina's testimony to the NOLA Grand Jury,
nor Ruby's statement that he thought he'd been injected with cancer cells,
nor Ferrie's fascination with mice and cancer. Judyth and her book were
pretty much left to stand or fall on their own. There was too much that
was new, and much that was largely undocumented, such as her involvement
in a get-Castro bioweapon plot. I think in some respects it may have been
too much for them.
Third, and I do expect a hue and cry from the usual suspects on this -- if
CBS at some high level was and is a part of the ongoing coverup, which has
included the sandbagging of Garrison, and they believed Judyth was telling
the truth, why in the world would they substantiate her credentials in
such a definitive manner as to show her to the world in a 60 Minutes
segment?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Pamela McElwain-Brown
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> > On 15 Jan 2008 20:40:26 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
things. Seems like anything more than that is too much trouble to be
bothered with.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
steve
wrote:
yeah we heard that insult from you already, it seems the only person
that was able to deal with it was a woman named Pam Brown.
> I
> don't think there was any way to assess it -- certainly not by itself.
>
> Secondly, it seems nobody at 60 Minutes apparently thought of researching
> around Judyth's statements.
could you please tell me what the hell there were doing when they
"invested a great deal of time, and money, in this effort, more time I
believe than we have put in on any story in the 30 years I have been
here." if it wasnt researching around Judyths statements?
>Marina's testimony to the NOLA Grand Jury,
> nor Ruby's statement that he thought he'd been injected with cancer cells,
> nor Ferrie's fascination with mice and cancer.
right, and you know this how?
> Judyth and her book were
> pretty much left to stand or fall on their own.
according to 60 min they "invested a great deal of time, and money, in
this effort, more time I believe than we have put in on any story in the
30 years I have been here." are you saying all they did was read her book
during that time?
> There was too much that
> was new,
lol like what? all the Judyth claims about dead people that only she
knows about?
> and much that was largely undocumented, such as her involvement
> in a get-Castro bioweapon plot. I think in some respects it may have been
> too much for them.
guess you dont think too much of 60 min. most people would disagree
with that.
>
> Third, and I do expect a hue and cry from the usual suspects on this -- if
> CBS at some high level was and is a part of the ongoing coverup, which has
> included the sandbagging of Garrison, and they believed Judyth was telling
> the truth, why in the world would they substantiate her credentials in
> such a definitive manner as to show her to the world in a 60 Minutes
> segment?
why in the world would cbs be involved in sandbagging Garrison or "part
of the ongoing coverup" ??????????? you specualte way too much with
nothing to go on but your whimms. it shows what lengths you would go to
believe Judyth no matter what.
>
> Pamela McElwain-Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
When someone ...anyone ... puts out a book, that is what people have
to assess. Checking sources, fact checking ... that is what makes or
breaks anyone's claims. If the claims cannot be documented ... or they
fall apart under scrutiny, then .... helloooooo?
>
>Secondly, it seems nobody at 60 Minutes apparently thought of researching
>around Judyth's statements.
You're speculating again. You have no way of knowing what all research
they did ... or how they went about it. In the letter, they say they
spent 14 months on this project before saying that when they went over
everything they had ... there wasn't enough.
>Marina's testimony to the NOLA Grand Jury,
>nor Ruby's statement that he thought he'd been injected with cancer cells,
Which in no way are evidence or proof of Judyth's claims.
>nor Ferrie's fascination with mice and cancer.
Ditto.
>Judyth and her book were
>pretty much left to stand or fall on their own.
See above .... anyone's book stands or falls on whether or not one can
back up there claims.
> There was too much that
>was new, and much that was largely undocumented, such as her involvement
>in a get-Castro bioweapon plot.
Well, at least you agree that whole tale is undovumented ...asnd other
things as well.
Since you see that, Pamela, I am curious as to why you still hang on
to her story as having any value ...any truth to it? Sincere question.
Not only is her tale largely undocumented, there are several things
that fly in the face of known documented facts. That's not a good
sign!
>I think in some respects it may have been
>too much for them.
Oh, I think they can handle big stories. They've been at it awhile.
What they can't do is run with a story that is "largely undocumented"
... that they can't check out ... and that does not check out in many
respects.
>
>Third, and I do expect a hue and cry from the usual suspects on this -- if
>CBS at some high level was and is a part of the ongoing coverup, which has
>included the sandbagging of Garrison, and they believed Judyth was telling
>the truth, why in the world would they substantiate her credentials in
>such a definitive manner as to show her to the world in a 60 Minutes
>segment?
Well, if they really wanted to be nasty, they could have done it up in
such a way that it destroyed Judyth, totally made a fool of her and in
the process used her to make the case we are all too familiar with
from many shows ... that CTs are nutcases. But they didn't do that.
And they could have.
Barb :-)
>
>Pamela McElwain-Brown
>www.in-broad-daylight.com
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Maybe it's a good thing Anthony got that letter ... for your sake,
Pamela ... or despite the date on that letter, are you still leaving
the door open for her having been instructed to write a letter to
"President Kennedy" in May 1960?
LOL
Dixie M Dea
Tue, On 15 Jan 2008 20:40:26 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
This was the communication from the segment producer at
"60 Minutes," explaining their decision not to do the segment.
It is dated October 19, 2000:
We have been looking into Judyth's story off and on, mostly on, for
fourteen months. This morning Don and I reviewed this effort. Our
primary question was whether or not all the information we had gathered
could be transformed into a 60 Minutes segment. The conclusion we
reached was that it could not. As a consequence we have called off our
research.
We are sorry that you have invested so much time and effort into this
enterprise, and we will honor any financial commitments we have made.
We, too, have invested a great deal of time, and money, in this effort,
more time I believe than we have put in on any story in the 30 years I
have been here. Which makes our decision as difficult for me as I know
it is for you.
We wish you well.
Jan 15, 2008, 11:36pm From: barbRE...@comcast.net
(Barb Junkkarinen)
Thanks for posting this again, Martin.
It looks to me like a polite, "no thank."
You said they had ALL of her documentation ... but they abandoned the
project, because after reviewing all they had ... it wasn't enough.
That's basically what just about everyone else says ... there just isn't
any actual documentation for anything aside from the 2 knowns: Reily's
and her science/cancer achievements.
Barb :-)
_________________________________
Thanks for sharing that with us Martin.
There is something else that I have wondered about, since reading Judyth's
book. In some areas where their needs to be some documentation and mostly
in the footnotes section, Judyth says she has the documentation and it was
sent to "Serious Researchers." Well one of the reasons for our buying and
reading the book was in order to see what she had as proof for her claims.
In that case, we got ripped off, since the proof was not there for us book
buyers to see. Only my opinion, but I would have thought she would have
shown everything she could possibly have as some proof and documentation.
Apparently nothing from these so-called serious researchers has ever come
forward, so I have to assume there really wasn't anything, for anyone,
afterall.
__________
Dixie
Martin Shackelford
it.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a37707ac-b40f-4184...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 15, 8:40?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
Martin Shackelford
Hewitt STILL says he would like to do the story.
If they didn't find her credible, why did they work on the story for
fourteen months, which they say is MUCH longer than their usual?-- more
time than was devoted to ANY previous "60 Minutes" segment. There's no
mention at all of any question regarding her credibility at that
point--they say only that they couldn't figure out a way to turn her
account into a "60 Minutes" segment--a 15-30 min.report. Perhaps the
complexity didn't lend itself to the format--many have argued that the 45
min. Nigel Turner segment was too brief and superficial, so the same would
seem likely of an even shorter piece.
Cheap shots are no substitute for careful reading and thoughtful analysis.
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7499eec5-8a29-417b...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Try reading it a bit more carefully.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qqcro31mtjoim2lfh...@4ax.com...
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>You apparently didn't read it carefully--or take into account that Don
>Hewitt STILL says he would like to do the story.
>
>If they didn't find her credible, why did they work on the story for
>fourteen months, which they say is MUCH longer than their usual?-- more
>time than was devoted to ANY previous "60 Minutes" segment. There's no
>mention at all of any question regarding her credibility at that
>point--they say only that they couldn't figure out a way to turn her
>account into a "60 Minutes" segment--a 15-30 min.report. Perhaps the
>complexity didn't lend itself to the format--many have argued that the 45
>min. Nigel Turner segment was too brief and superficial, so the same would
>seem likely of an even shorter piece.
>
>Cheap shots are no substitute for careful reading and thoughtful analysis.
>
You said they had "all" the evidence.
They said it wasn't enough.
And these aren't the most careful jurnalists in the world. Remember
Rathergate.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Martin Shackelford
quizzed by attacker Robert Johnson confirmed. You're also wrong about
Roswell Park being the only post-high evidence of her cancer research--two
years of college at St. Francis, a paper on melanoma to the Indiana
Biological Association, etc. You mention Roswell Park in passing, but fail
to note that she was the only Florida student invited to participate--a
bit more difficult to achieve than winning a class science prize, which is
what you choose to emphasize. Speaking of frauds, this post of yours would
seem to qualify.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:94731de2-5b6f-4611...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
The fact that the letter exists does not prove WHY she wrote it.
However, the fact that it does exists proves that she was not just
fabricating, as Team McAdams claims.
Anthony Marsh
Exactly. And that's what we did with the Warren Commission Report and
found out that it is all lies.
>> Secondly, it seems nobody at 60 Minutes apparently thought of researching
>> around Judyth's statements.
>
> You're speculating again. You have no way of knowing what all research
> they did ... or how they went about it. In the letter, they say they
> spent 14 months on this project before saying that when they went over
> everything they had ... there wasn't
I seem to remember that there were other stories that they wanted to do,
but were rejected because they were too controversial. Wasn't there
something about a cigarette story? And remember how LBJ's flunkies got the
History Channel to pull their last three episodes of The Men Who Killed
Kennedy.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
What are you referencing, Barb? Or are you just off on another verbal
stroll?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
j_kev...@yahoo.com
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> > On 16 Jan 2008 23:54:48 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
It would be fair to say, however, that the content and time frame of the
letter do not support the claim that it is not the letter claimed by
Judyth to have been written in the context of a spook loyalty oath
ceremony in May of 1960, wouldn't you say?
J.K.
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Nothing in the e-mail says anything about there not being enough, Barb.
>Try reading it a bit more carefully.
>
>Martin
Okaaaay, Martin .... all they had could not "be transformed into a 60
Minutes segment."
Sounds to me like they didn't think they had enough they could run
with.
I understand you won't be able to recognize that.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Short term memory can be such a problem sometimes. Earth to Pamela ...
think back a few months to the whole Indiana Science Fair fiasco ....
Judyth was at the 11th annual event held in May 1960. She relates in
her book a very detailed story about how, while there, she was whisked
away to meet with doctors, military officers and CIA ... she signed
loyalty oaths and was instructed to write to "President Kennedy."
Surely you see the problem with anyone claiming they were instructed
to write to "President Kennedy" in May ***1960*** .... don't you?
Please tell me you do .... but then, it obviously slipped by Judyth.
Her whole silly Indiana Science Fair cloak and dagger story falls
apart when it butts up against history.
Barb Junkkarinen
McAdams) wrote:
>On 17 Jan 2008 21:31:38 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
><msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>You apparently didn't read it carefully--or take into account that Don
>>Hewitt STILL says he would like to do the story.
>>
>>If they didn't find her credible, why did they work on the story for
>>fourteen months, which they say is MUCH longer than their usual?-- more
>>time than was devoted to ANY previous "60 Minutes" segment. There's no
>>mention at all of any question regarding her credibility at that
>>point--they say only that they couldn't figure out a way to turn her
>>account into a "60 Minutes" segment--a 15-30 min.report. Perhaps the
>>complexity didn't lend itself to the format--many have argued that the 45
>>min. Nigel Turner segment was too brief and superficial, so the same would
>>seem likely of an even shorter piece.
>>
>>Cheap shots are no substitute for careful reading and thoughtful analysis.
>>
>
>You said they had "all" the evidence.
>
>They said it wasn't enough.
And yet Martin said that 60 Minutes had ALL the evidence/documentation
... one time he made that comment was when he was being questioned
about the alleged Oswald marginalia. While it's stretches any
semblance of reason to think that Team Judyth would have what could be
the Holy Grail to prove her story and not have it analyzed by a
professional .... it's even more of a stretch to thinmk that 60
Minutes had that book with the margin notes, they researched and
worked on the story over 14 months ... and THEY never had that writing
looked at by an expert??
I find that so improbable to be laughable. If they had it and it
checked out it would have been all over the news .... and they would
have done their segment. If they had it and it didn't check out ....
something would have been heard as well, or at least the brush off
wouldn't have been as polite.
Personally, I have to question whether or not that potentially
explosive item of evidence was ever given to 60 Minutes.
And if not ... WHY not.
Only one reason I can think of.
Barb :-)
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> Not having the segment producer's permission to use his name, I didn't add
> it.
>
> Martin
You love anonymous sources, don't you, Shackelford? That way no one
can ever pin you down and discover if you're telling the truth.
JGL
>
> <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > We wish you well.- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
Yes, remember what a big deal you made out of obvious simple mistakes.
> think back a few months to the whole Indiana Science Fair fiasco ....
> Judyth was at the 11th annual event held in May 1960. She relates in
> her book a very detailed story about how, while there, she was whisked
> away to meet with doctors, military officers and CIA ... she signed
> loyalty oaths and was instructed to write to "President Kennedy."
>
> Surely you see the problem with anyone claiming they were instructed
> to write to "President Kennedy" in May ***1960*** .... don't you?
>
She got the date wrong. She got a detail wrong. So likewise Priscilla
got the detail about how much money Oswald left for Marina wrong, so by
your standards everything that Priscilla says is a fairy tale.
j_kev...@yahoo.com
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> > On 16 Jan 2008 23:17:14 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
There are certainly examples of stories for which there was evidence
of controversial claims where attempts were made to suppress the
story, not due to lack or evidence, but because of the controversial
nature of what the evidence revealed. In Judyth's case, it was
concluded by the sixty minutes people that all they had was her story,
with no evidence to support its more fantastic elements. Without such
evidence, it would appear that Judyth's case can be differentiated
from cases characterized by attempts to suppress evidence, instead
appearing to be a simple case of journalists refusing to go out on a
limb with unsubstantiated claims (journalistic integrity). An
entirely different situation than that presented by the Jeffrey Wigand
debacle (where, in any event, the attempt to suppress evidence
ultimately failed).
J.K.
> >>www.in-broad-daylight.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dave Reitzes
> BOTTOM POST
>
> �Tue, On 15 Jan 2008 20:40:26 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
>
>
> This was the communication from the segment producer at
> "60 Minutes," explaining their decision not to do the segment.
>
> It is dated October 19, 2000:
>
> We have been looking into Judyth's story off and on, mostly on, for
> fourteen months. This morning Don and I reviewed this effort. Our
> primary question was whether or not all the information we had gathered
> could be transformed into a 60 Minutes segment. The conclusion we
> reached was that it could not. As a consequence we have called off our
> research.
>
> We are sorry that you have invested so much time and effort into this
> enterprise, and we will honor any financial commitments we have made.
> We, too, have invested a great deal of time, and money, in this effort,
> more time I believe than we have put in on any story in the 30 years I
> have been here. Which makes our decision as difficult for me as I know
> it is for you.
> We wish you well.
>
> (Barb�Junkkarinen)
>
> Thanks for posting this again, Martin.
>
> It looks to me like a polite, "no thank."
>
> You said they had ALL of her documentation ... but they abandoned the
> project, because after reviewing all they had ... it wasn't enough.
> That's basically what just about everyone else says ... there just isn't
> any actual documentation for anything aside from the 2 knowns: Reily's
> and her science/cancer achievements.
>
> Barb :-)
>
> _________________________________
>
> Thanks for sharing that with us Martin.
>
> There is something else that I have wondered about, since reading Judyth's
> book. In some areas where their needs to be some documentation and mostly
> in the footnotes section, Judyth says she has the documentation and it was
> sent to "Serious Researchers." Well one of the reasons for our buying and
> reading the book was in order to see what she had as proof for her claims.
> In that case, we got ripped off, since the proof was not there for us book
> buyers to see. Only my opinion, but I would have thought she would have
> shown everything she could possibly have as some proof and documentation.
> Apparently nothing from these so-called serious researchers has ever come
> forward, so I have to assume there really wasn't anything, for anyone,
> afterall.
>
> __________
> Dixie
She also says in her footnotes that she's withholding some of her
"evidence" until her NEXT book.
As if the first book wasn't enough of a rip-off.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> You apparently didn't read it carefully--or take into account that Don
> Hewitt STILL says he would like to do the story.
>
> If they didn't find her credible, why did they work on the story for
> fourteen months, which they say is MUCH longer than their usual?-- more
> time than was devoted to ANY previous "60 Minutes" segment.
Close to a decade later, Martin still clings tightly to 60 MINUTES'
"Dear John" letter.
Because no one else of any importance has made the same mistake they
did in taking Judyth seriously, if only briefly.
Dave
There's no
> mention at all of any question regarding her credibility at that
> point--they say only that they couldn't figure out a way to turn her
> account into a "60 Minutes" segment--a 15-30 min.report. Perhaps the
> complexity didn't lend itself to the format--many have argued that the 45
> min. Nigel Turner segment was too brief and superficial, so the same would
> seem likely of an even shorter piece.
>
> Cheap shots are no substitute for careful reading and thoughtful analysis.
>
> Martin
>
> "steve" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
You don't get it. She was documentably at the 11th annual Indiana
Science Fair. It was held in May 1960. Her whole tale is of the goings
on while she was AT THAT SCIENCE FAIR. Being whisked away, intel
people, signing loyalty oaths ... AND being told to write to President
Kennedy. It is IMPOSSIBLE for her to have been instructed to write to
"President Kennedy" in May of 1960. He not only was not yet the
president ... he wasn't even the party nominee at that point. She
didn't get any date wrong ... history, and her lack of either knowing
it or thinking about it, tripped her up.
If you can't see her tale crashing up against the historical fact wall
with that ... no one can help you.
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> Well, you're wrong about her research, as even former fellow students
> quizzed by attacker Robert Johnson confirmed. You're also wrong about
> Roswell Park being the only post-high evidence of her cancer research--two
> years of college at St. Francis, a paper on melanoma to the Indiana
> Biological Association, etc. You mention Roswell Park in passing, but fail
> to note that she was the only Florida student invited to participate--a
> bit more difficult to achieve than winning a class science prize, which is
> what you choose to emphasize. Speaking of frauds, this post of yours would
> seem to qualify.
>
> Martin
LOL. Martin doesn't know the meaning of the word.
Literally.
> <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote in message
Dave
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2008 21:31:51 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> >Nothing in the e-mail says anything about there not being enough, Barb.
> >Try reading it a bit more carefully.
>
> >Martin
>
> Okaaaay, Martin .... all they had could not "be transformed into a 60
> Minutes segment."
>
> Sounds to me like they didn't think they had enough they could run
> with.
>
> I understand you won't be able to recognize that.
>
> Barb :-)
Oddly, if one credits Martin's interpretation, they didn't think
enough of the story to recommend it to their colleagues at CBS News,
who could have done anything they saw fit to bring it to light.
They just outright rejected it.
Hmm, I wonder why.
> >"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:qqcro31mtjoim2lfh...@4ax.com...
> >> On 15 Jan 2008 20:40:26 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
> >> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>>This was the communication from the segment producer at
>
> >>>"60 Minutes," explaining their decision not to do the segment.
>
> >>>It is dated October 19, 2000:
>
> >>>We have been looking into Judyth's story off and on, mostly on, for
> >>>fourteen months. This morning Don and I reviewed this effort. Our primary
> >>>question was whether or not all the information we had gathered could be
> >>>transformed into a 60 Minutes segment. The conclusion we reached was that
> >>>it could not. As a consequence we have called off our research.
>
> >>>We are sorry that you have invested so much time and effort into this
> >>>enterprise, and we will honor any financial commitments we have made. We,
> >>>too, have invested a great deal of time, and money, in this effort, more
> >>>time I believe than we have put in on any story in the 30 years I have
> >>>been here. Which makes our decision as difficult for me as I know it is
> >>>for you.
>
> >>>We wish you well.
>
> >> Thanks for posting this again, Martin.
>
> >> It looks to me like a polite, "no thank."
>
> >> You said they had ALL of her documentation ... but they abandoned the
> >> project, because after reviewing all they had ... it wasn't enough.
>
> >> That's basically what just about everyone else says ... there just
> >> isn't any actual documentation for anything aside from the 2 knowns:
> >> Reily's and her science/cancer achievements.
>
> >> Barb :-)
Dave
j_kev...@yahoo.com
Barb is referencing the claim that in the context of taking some cloak and
dagger loyalty oaths in May 1960, Judyth was instructed to write to
President Kennedy to volunteer her services. Your ad hominem attack is
completely unresponsive. Care to supplement it with a legitimate
response?
J.K.
steve
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> > On 16 Jan 2008 23:54:48 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
who are you suggesting claims that she didnt write the letter? name
please?
>
>
>
> > LOL
>
> > Barb :-)
> >> Pamela McElwain-Brown
Martin Shackelford
prior editing of them before I saw them. As he was less familiar with her
account, he sometimes deleted things that should have remained in--in some
cases, when he did this in the text, I was able to get them reinstated. I
was also able to do this, when I was aware of some things, in the
footnotes. Some of the needed documentation, however, may not have been
there by the time I saw the footnotes.
Martin
"Dixie M Dea" <gatew...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5945-478...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net...
Martin Shackelford
Perhaps that's why you omitted the original message.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:47901023...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Martin Shackelford
involve more detail than they could do in a "60 Minutes" segment.
But, of course, I'm relying on sources at "60 Minutes," not on the
omniscient Barb J., who sees all and knows all without any sources.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1i70p3908g51dlov9...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
copies of the pages with marginal comments in early 2000--Howard
Liebengood had access to it when he came to Saginaw, and he served as a
consultant on the matter for "60 Minutes." They had copies of all of the
significant evidence that I had at the time, so I KNOW they had that. As
you note, if they had found it inauthentic, their message would have been
less polite.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:j1g0p35aj7ur752on...@4ax.com...
JLeyd...@aol.com
> quizzed by attacker Robert Johnson confirmed. You're also wrong about
> Roswell Park being the only post-high evidence of her cancer research--two
> years of college at St. Francis, a paper on melanoma to the Indiana
> Biological Association, etc. You mention Roswell Park in passing, but fail
> to note that she was the only Florida student invited to participate--a
> bit more difficult to achieve than winning a class science prize, which is
> what you choose to emphasize. Speaking of frauds, this post of yours would
> seem to qualify.
>
> Martin
>
Let's do the math here, Shackelford. You say Judyth had two years of
study at St. Francis but she was graduated from high school in mid-1961
and entered Florida U. in the fall of 1962. That would give her only one
year at St. Francis and I doubt she spent that. In any event she didn't
earn an AA degreer (in English) until 1965. What was she doing with
herself? Why wasn't she pursuing cancer research when the whole world is
looking for a cure. What sutter nonsense this whole topic is.
JGL
Texextra
wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2008 21:31:51 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> >Nothing in the e-mail says anything about there not being enough, Barb.
> >Try reading it a bit more carefully.
>
> >Martin
>
> Okaaaay, Martin .... all they had could not "be transformed into a 60
> Minutes segment."
>
> Sounds to me like they didn't think they had enough they could run
> with.
There is no way to correlate what comprises a good 20 minute television
segment with the factors that interest researchers. It is apples and
oranges, not necessarily "good", "bad" or "indifferent" from a research
perspective. We simply don't know whether there's not enough appealing
video, not enough data, too much data, not enough verification, not enough
public appeal to attract advertisers, etc. There's not enough information
in the email to make a determination of the reasoning.
>
> I understand you won't be able to recognize that.
>
> Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:qqcro31mtjoim2lfh...@4ax.com...
> >> On 15 Jan 2008 20:40:26 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
> >> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>>This was the communication from the segment producer at
>
> >>>"60 Minutes," explaining their decision not to do the segment.
>
> >>>It is dated October 19, 2000:
>
> >>>We have been looking into Judyth's story off and on, mostly on, for
> >>>fourteen months. This morning Don and I reviewed this effort. Our primary
> >>>question was whether or not all the information we had gathered could be
> >>>transformed into a 60 Minutes segment. The conclusion we reached was that
> >>>it could not. As a consequence we have called off our research.
>
> >>>We are sorry that you have invested so much time and effort into this
> >>>enterprise, and we will honor any financial commitments we have made. We,
> >>>too, have invested a great deal of time, and money, in this effort, more
> >>>time I believe than we have put in on any story in the 30 years I have
> >>>been here. Which makes our decision as difficult for me as I know it is
> >>>for you.
>
> >>>We wish you well.
>
> >> Thanks for posting this again, Martin.
>
> >> It looks to me like a polite, "no thank."
>
> >> You said they had ALL of her documentation ... but they abandoned the
> >> project, because after reviewing all they had ... it wasn't enough.
>
> >> That's basically what just about everyone else says ... there just
> >> isn't any actual documentation for anything aside from the 2 knowns:
> >> Reily's and her science/cancer achievements.
>
> >> Barb :-)- Hide quoted text -
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>What you don't seem to recognize is that they felt her story would
>involve more detail than they could do in a "60 Minutes" segment.
>But, of course, I'm relying on sources at "60 Minutes," not on the
>omniscient Barb J., who sees all and knows all without any sources.
>
>Martin
I only know what I read in the letter you posted, Martin ... and gave
my opinion. To say that they had so much they couldn't get it into one
segment so instead chose to do no segment at all sounds pretty
ridiculous. Wishful thinking on your part.
Of course you could always write to them and ask them to confirm your
take on it. :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>You're inventing your own history again, based on supposition, Barb. I had
>copies of the pages with marginal comments in early 2000--Howard
>Liebengood had access to it when he came to Saginaw, and he served as a
>consultant on the matter for "60 Minutes." They had copies of all of the
>significant evidence that I had at the time, so I KNOW they had that. As
>you note, if they had found it inauthentic, their message would have been
>less polite.
And if they had it examined and found it authentic ... it would have
been on the national news ...and they'd have done a segment.
Glad to hear you are positive they had it though ... would be
interesting to find out if they had it examined by a professional or
not.... and if not, why not.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Jan 17, 10:36?pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> On 17 Jan 2008 21:31:51 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
>>
>> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >Nothing in the e-mail says anything about there not being enough, Barb.
>> >Try reading it a bit more carefully.
>>
>> >Martin
>>
>> Okaaaay, Martin .... all they had could not "be transformed into a 60
>> Minutes segment."
>>
>> Sounds to me like they didn't think they had enough they could run
>> with.
>>
>> I understand you won't be able to recognize that.
>>
>> Barb :-)
>
>
>Oddly, if one credits Martin's interpretation, they didn't think
>enough of the story to recommend it to their colleagues at CBS News,
>who could have done anything they saw fit to bring it to light.
>
>They just outright rejected it.
Looks that way to me. If they thought they had so much it was too much
for one segment ... they could have done more segments.
>
>Hmm, I wonder why.
I don't ... and you don't either. :-)
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
You are saying the 1960 is correct?
> If you can't see her tale crashing up against the historical fact wall
> with that ... no one can help you.
If you can't notice that I said that a very long time ago then no one
Anthony Marsh
And tell us how you know this for a fact. Internal memos? Telephone
interview? Psychic viewing? What?
steve
wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2008 14:12:06 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>
>
> >Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >> On 17 Jan 2008 21:51:27 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
sound proof booth, recording studio, at eli lilly but she just got
the dat wrong lol
>
>
>
>
> >> Please tell me you do .... but then, it obviously slipped by Judyth.
> >> Her whole silly Indiana Science Fair cloak and dagger story falls
> >> apart when it butts up against history.
>
> >> Barb :-)
>
> >>> Pamela McElwain-Brown
steve
wrote:
> Nowhere in that message does it say they didn't have enough evidence.
> Perhaps that's why you omitted the original message.
biwhere in that message does it say they have too much. they say they
cant make a segment out of it. not that its too much.
>
> Martin
>
> "John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:47901023...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
>
> > On 17 Jan 2008 21:31:38 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
> > <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>You apparently didn't read it carefully--or take into account that Don
> >>Hewitt STILL says he would like to do the story.
>
> >>If they didn't find her credible, why did they work on the story for
> >>fourteen months, which they say is MUCH longer than their usual?-- more
> >>time than was devoted to ANY previous "60 Minutes" segment. There's no
> >>mention at all of any question regarding her credibility at that
> >>point--they say only that they couldn't figure out a way to turn her
> >>account into a "60 Minutes" segment--a 15-30 min.report. Perhaps the
> >>complexity didn't lend itself to the format--many have argued that the 45
> >>min. Nigel Turner segment was too brief and superficial, so the same would
> >>seem likely of an even shorter piece.
>
> >>Cheap shots are no substitute for careful reading and thoughtful analysis.
>
> > You said they had "all" the evidence.
>
> > They said it wasn't enough.
>
> > And these aren't the most careful jurnalists in the world. Remember
> > Rathergate.
>
> > .John
>
> > The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Shall I type it slower?
The 11th Annual Science Fair in Indiana, that Judyth attended, was in
May 1960.
It's only been posted a bejillion times.
Barb Junkkarinen
Yes, a regular Nancy Drew spellbinder for 12 year olds. Too bad
history got in her way, eh?
Barb :-)
steve
wrote:
and too bad for Tony he cant understand that when she goes into that
much detail about how/why/where/the circumstances of why she wrote the
letter, it cant just be a faulty memory on the date.
>
>
>
>
> >> >> Please tell me you do .... but then, it obviously slipped by Judyth.
> >> >> Her whole silly Indiana Science Fair cloak and dagger story falls
> >> >> apart when it butts up against history.
>
> >> >> Barb :-)
>
> >> >>> Pamela McElwain-Brown
> >> >>>www.in-broad-daylight.com-Hide quoted text -
Barb Junkkarinen
She's also got a picture of an activities list in her book that notes
11th annual ... plus we know it was during her junior year in high
school ....
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
And too bad that you can't read the old messages and see that I have
always said that I do not buy her account of why she wrote the letter. She
didn't even remember what she had written. I was the person who actually
found her original letter at the Kennedy Library. Not Team Judyth, not
Team McAdams, not you.
Anthony Marsh
Try to focus. YOU said she didn't get the date wrong.
I said she did get the date wrong and you disagreed with me.
Anthony Marsh
> On 18 Jan 2008 21:45:14 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
> <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> You're inventing your own history again, based on supposition, Barb. I had
>> copies of the pages with marginal comments in early 2000--Howard
>> Liebengood had access to it when he came to Saginaw, and he served as a
>> consultant on the matter for "60 Minutes." They had copies of all of the
>> significant evidence that I had at the time, so I KNOW they had that. As
>> you note, if they had found it inauthentic, their message would have been
>> less polite.
>
> And if they had it examined and found it authentic ... it would have
> been on the national news ...and they'd have done a segment.
>
No way. You think that CBS ever leaks what it is working on? They did not
leak their internal memos about their shooting tests.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Anthony...I am ready to stop reading your posts. Frankly, they are a
waste of time, mostly uou seem hell bent on just being a niggler and a
provocateur.
I made a statement above. It is factual. You can look at it any way
you want, stand on your head for all I care.
She was at the science fair in May 1960.
She wrote that while at THAT fair she was instructed to write to
"President Kennedy."
That is IMPOSSIBLE.
She wrote a typical teenabe girl fan letter to the new President in
February 1961 ... and received a typical reply from the White House.
Whoopee.
THAT letter has NADA to do with her claim about what happened to her
at the May 1960 science fair.
Try to be a big boy and deal with it.
Anthony Marsh
Huh? New math? Maybe she spent one year working in a secret CIA lab
developing cancer as an assassination weapon.
> JGL
Anthony Marsh
Google it.
steve
well i know that, we ALL know that, we also know you like to argue for
no reason. im just helping you out Bub.
> She
> didn't even remember what she had written. I was the person who actually
> found her original letter at the Kennedy Library. Not Team Judyth, not
> Team McAdams, not you.
your the only person who lives close enough to the Kennedy Library to
find the letter, sorry if im not going to drive a few thousand miles to
find a letter that is meaningless. like you said, her account could be
discounted without the letter. you said as soon as she said she had an
affair with Oswald you knew she was full of it. how nice of you to find
her fan letter though, thanks. i still have one question though. did you
wear your gumshoes to the kennedy library? i know, i know, at least you
have a pair, but my question is, did you wear them?
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> Please tell me you do .... but then, it obviously slipped by Judyth.
> >>>>>> Her whole silly Indiana Science Fair cloak and dagger story falls
> >>>>>> apart when it butts up against history.
> >>>>>> Barb :-)
> >>>>>>> Pamela McElwain-Brown
> >>>>>>>www.in-broad-daylight.com-Hidequoted text -
steve
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> > On 18 Jan 2008 22:42:45 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >>> On 18 Jan 2008 14:12:06 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >>>> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >>>>> On 17 Jan 2008 21:51:27 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
if we locked Tony in a room all alone, does anyone think he would argue
with himself over nonsense?
>
>
>
> > It's only been posted a bejillion times.
> >>> If you can't see her tale crashing up against the historical fact wall
> >>> with that ... no one can help you.
> >> If you can't notice that I said that a very long time ago then no one
> >> can help you.
>
> >>>>> Please tell me you do .... but then, it obviously slipped by Judyth.
> >>>>> Her whole silly Indiana Science Fair cloak and dagger story falls
> >>>>> apart when it butts up against history.
>
> >>>>> Barb :-)
>
> >>>>>> Pamela McElwain-Brown
> >>>>>>www.in-broad-daylight.com- Hide quoted text -
steve
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> > On 18 Jan 2008 22:42:45 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >>> On 18 Jan 2008 14:12:06 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >>>> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >>>>> On 17 Jan 2008 21:51:27 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
you say a lot of things Tony, and most of the time for no reason. we are
discussing Judyth's statements and the reasons they dont stand up yet you
sit back and say things like
" The fact that the letter exists does not prove WHY she wrote it.
However, the fact that it does exists proves that she was not just
fabricating,"
she WAS just fabricating and the letter proves it, yet you say things
like
"She got the date wrong. She got a detail wrong. So likewise Priscilla got
the detail about how much money Oswald left for Marina wrong, so by your
standards everything that Priscilla says is a fairy tale"
not to mention the fact that this thread was about 60 mins, and the only
reason we are talking about the stupid letter is because YOU brought it up
AGAIN, like you do in every thread. you should try and focus on the
subject at hand. otherwise why dont you put your gumshoes back on, since
your soooooooooooooooooooooooo much better than everyone at "research"
and find something that makes a difference. get your fingers all dirty
because none of UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUS will travel half way across the
country all the way to the kennedy library to find something than means
nothing.
steve
huh? got any evidence on any of that? or are you blowing smoke again?
>
>
>
> > JGL- Hide quoted text -
steve
translation= im blowing smoke again, please dont call me on it.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> LOL
> >>> Barb :-)
> >>>> Pamela McElwain-Brown
> >>>>www.in-broad-daylight.com-Hide quoted text -
Martin Shackelford
consultant, Mr. Liebengood. You are accepting the myths circulated by
Judyth's attackers, with no basis in fact from the people involved.
Martin
<j_kev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c521feb6-d9fd-4c59...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 17, 7:40 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> > On 16 Jan 2008 23:17:14 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
> > <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Jan 16, 1:36 am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
support its more fantastic elements. Without such evidence, it would
Martin Shackelford
They didn't "outright reject it"--they were told to kill it. As Don Hewitt
put it, "the door was slammed" by higher-ups at CBS. He, the segment
producer, and reporter Mike Wallace still wanted to do the story.
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:73e5235e-e03b-40c5...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 17, 10:36?pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2008 21:31:51 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >Nothing in the e-mail says anything about there not being enough, Barb.
> >Try reading it a bit more carefully.
>
> >Martin
>
> Okaaaay, Martin .... all they had could not "be transformed into a 60
> Minutes segment."
>
> Sounds to me like they didn't think they had enough they could run
> with.
>
> I understand you won't be able to recognize that.
>
> Barb :-)
Oddly, if one credits Martin's interpretation, they didn't think
enough of the story to recommend it to their colleagues at CBS News,
who could have done anything they saw fit to bring it to light.
They just outright rejected it.
Hmm, I wonder why.
> >"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:qqcro31mtjoim2lfh...@4ax.com...
> >> Barb :-)
Dave
Martin Shackelford
Florida--that's what I've said in earlier posts.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6a3d2e3a-d55c-47b5...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 17, 9:38?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Well, you're wrong about her research, as even former fellow students
> quizzed by attacker Robert Johnson confirmed. You're also wrong about
> Roswell Park being the only post-high evidence of her cancer research--two
> years of college at St. Francis, a paper on melanoma to the Indiana
> Biological Association, etc. You mention Roswell Park in passing, but fail
> to note that she was the only Florida student invited to participate--a
> bit more difficult to achieve than winning a class science prize, which is
> what you choose to emphasize. Speaking of frauds, this post of yours would
> seem to qualify.
>
> Martin
>
Let's do the math here, Shackelford. You say Judyth had two years of
study at St. Francis but she was graduated from high school in mid-1961
and entered Florida U. in the fall of 1962. That would give her only one
year at St. Francis and I doubt she spent that. In any event she didn't
earn an AA degreer (in English) until 1965. What was she doing with
herself? Why wasn't she pursuing cancer research when the whole world is
looking for a cure. What sutter nonsense this whole topic is.
JGL
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Texextra" <texe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a5c1fae-0096-4a4c...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 17, 9:36 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2008 21:31:51 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >Nothing in the e-mail says anything about there not being enough, Barb.
> >Try reading it a bit more carefully.
>
> >Martin
>
> Okaaaay, Martin .... all they had could not "be transformed into a 60
> Minutes segment."
>
> Sounds to me like they didn't think they had enough they could run
> with.
There is no way to correlate what comprises a good 20 minute television
segment with the factors that interest researchers. It is apples and
oranges, not necessarily "good", "bad" or "indifferent" from a research
perspective. We simply don't know whether there's not enough appealing
video, not enough data, too much data, not enough verification, not enough
public appeal to attract advertisers, etc. There's not enough information
in the email to make a determination of the reasoning.
>
> I understand you won't be able to recognize that.
>
> Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Barb :-)- Hide quoted text -
Martin Shackelford
consultant. I''ll take their opinions over your speculations any day.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dmr2p3p0shujhseru...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Jan 2008 21:44:14 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
> <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>What you don't seem to recognize is that they felt her story would
>>involve more detail than they could do in a "60 Minutes" segment.
>>But, of course, I'm relying on sources at "60 Minutes," not on the
>>omniscient Barb J., who sees all and knows all without any sources.
>>
>>Martin
>
> I only know what I read in the letter you posted, Martin ... and gave
> my opinion. To say that they had so much they couldn't get it into one
> segment so instead chose to do no segment at all sounds pretty
> ridiculous. Wishful thinking on your part.
>
> Of course you could always write to them and ask them to confirm your
> take on it. :-)
>
> Barb :-)
>>
>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:1i70p3908g51dlov9...@4ax.com...
>>> On 17 Jan 2008 21:31:51 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
>>> <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nothing in the e-mail says anything about there not being enough, Barb.
>>>>Try reading it a bit more carefully.
>>>>
>>>>Martin
>>>
>>> Okaaaay, Martin .... all they had could not "be transformed into a 60
>>> Minutes segment."
>>>
>>> Sounds to me like they didn't think they had enough they could run
>>> with.
>>>
>>> I understand you won't be able to recognize that.
>>>
>>> Barb :-)
>>>>
>>>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:qqcro31mtjoim2lfh...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On 15 Jan 2008 20:40:26 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>My "take" on it came from "60 Minutes" segment producer and
>consultant. I''ll take their opinions over your speculations any day.
If we had something other than your hearsay on exactly what all these
people said, then there wouldn't be any doubt. But we don't have that.
Barb :-)
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2008 21:51:27 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
>
>
>
>
> <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 17, 12:56 am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
> >wrote:
> >> On 16 Jan 2008 23:54:48 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
> >> <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 16, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>
> >> >> >> This was the communication from the segment producer at
>
> >> >> >> "60 Minutes," explaining their decision not to do the segment.
>
> >> >> >> It is dated October 19, 2000:
>
> >> >> >> We have been looking into Judyth's story off and on, mostly on, for
> >> >> >> fourteen months. This morning Don and I reviewed this effort. Our primary
> >> >> >> question was whether or not all the information we had gathered could be
> >> >> >> transformed into a 60 Minutes segment. The conclusion we reached was that
> >> >> >> it could not. As a consequence we have called off our research.
>
> >> >> >> We are sorry that you have invested so much time and effort into this
> >> >> >> enterprise, and we will honor any financial commitments we have made. We,
> >> >> >> too, have invested a great deal of time, and money, in this effort, more
> >> >> >> time I believe than we have put in on any story in the 30 years I have
> >> >> >> been here. Which makes our decision as difficult for me as I know it is
> >> >> >> for you.
>
> >> >> >> We wish you well.
>
> >> >> > Thanks for posting this again, Martin.
>
> >> >> > It looks to me like a polite, "no thank."
>
> >> >> > You said they had ALL of her documentation ... but they abandoned the
> >> >> > project, because after reviewing all they had ... it wasn't enough.
>
> >> >> > That's basically what just about everyone else says ... there just
> >> >> > isn't any actual documentation for anything aside from the 2 knowns:
> >> >> > Reily's and her science/cancer achievements.
>
> >> >> did not. You haven't offered ANY documents.
>
> >> >Remember, Anthony? Barb prefers to take BB/Roy's word for various
> >> >things. Seems like anything more than that is too much trouble to be
> >> >bothered with.
>
> >> Maybe it's a good thing Anthony got that letter ... for your sake,
> >> Pamela ... or despite the date on that letter, are you still leaving
> >> the door open for her having been instructed to write a letter to
> >> "President Kennedy" in May 1960?
>
> >stroll?
>
> Short term memory can be such a problem sometimes. Earth to Pamela ...
It's just so time-consuming to keep track of all the gossipy threads
you seem to be jumping into, not to mention all the exhausting
nitpicking that seems to go on.
Judyth wrote a letter to JFK. Anthony retrieved it. And you seem
compelled to run with yet another example of the fallacy of false
alternatives.
Maybe nothing has changed in all this time.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Oh! So you BELIEVE Judyth was instructed to write to "President
Kennedy" while at the Indiana Science Fair in May 1960????
Please DO answer!!
We already knew she's written a letter to JFK in February 1961 ...
because there was already a reply from Dugan in hand (not put in her
book though, probably because of the 1961 date on it!).
>
>Maybe nothing has changed in all this time.
Well, history hasn't changed ,,, that's for sure. You do know there
was no President Kennedy in May 1960 ... don't you?
Anthony Marsh
She was NOT just fabricating the letter. I found it. YOU did not.
> "She got the date wrong. She got a detail wrong. So likewise Priscilla got
> the detail about how much money Oswald left for Marina wrong, so by your
> standards everything that Priscilla says is a fairy tale"
>
Apply the same standards to the WC defenders. You don't.
> not to mention the fact that this thread was about 60 mins, and the only
> reason we are talking about the stupid letter is because YOU brought it up
> AGAIN, like you do in every thread. you should try and focus on the
> subject at hand. otherwise why dont you put your gumshoes back on, since
> your soooooooooooooooooooooooo much better than everyone at "research"
> and find something that makes a difference. get your fingers all dirty
> because none of UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUS will travel half way across the
> country all the way to the kennedy library to find something than means
> nothing.
>
It was at the Kennedy Library that I found the smoking gun that
indicates that Helms was the mastermind.
Anthony Marsh
You can't even get out of your house to find anything. You can't even
Google to find anything.
> discounted without the letter. you said as soon as she said she had an
> affair with Oswald you knew she was full of it. how nice of you to find
Someone told me that was her story and instantly I knew it was fiction.
> her fan letter though, thanks. i still have one question though. did you
> wear your gumshoes to the kennedy library? i know, i know, at least you
> have a pair, but my question is, did you wear them?
>
Nah. Weather was not right.
Anthony Marsh
Try to separate fact from fantasy. Just admit the fact that she wrote
the letter and ignore the fantasy about why.
steve
are you saying she wrote the letter in 1960? you believe all the
stuff about Eli LIlly?
>
> Maybe nothing has changed in all this time.
>
> Pamela McElwain-Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com- Hide quoted text -
Pamela McElwain-Brown
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> > On 18 Jan 2008 22:42:45 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >>> On 18 Jan 2008 14:12:06 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >>>> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >>>>> On 17 Jan 2008 21:51:27 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
Why is Barb having such a tough time with something so simple?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2008 19:21:47 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>
>
> >Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >> On 18 Jan 2008 22:42:45 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >>> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >>>> On 18 Jan 2008 14:12:06 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >>>>> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >>>>>> On 17 Jan 2008 21:51:27 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
Translation: Anthony is scoring points big time and Barb doesn't like
it.
Actually, it's pretty amazing that Anthony can focus on Barb's posts
sufficiently to wind his way through the lengthy tedium of innuendo.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Pamela McElwain-Brown
would emerge? Just recently we've had Barb-as-psychic, then Barb-as-
shrink, and of course Barb-as-history's-voice. That might make for
some interesting conversation.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
To quote Anthony the other day: "Drivel."
Anthony is "scoring points"? You're hilarious .... have you even
figured out yet that he just likes to niggle ... and doesn't believe
Judyth's tale either?
And yeah, sure ...Judyth just got the date wrong ala Anthony ... one
of the few pieces of "evidence" she actually has makes it clear she
was at the 11th annual science fair ... that was in 1960, BEFORE
Kennedy was elected president. Heck, it was before he even became the
nominee! It was also her junior year in high school ... oh yeah, she
just got the date wrong. Amazing you can support that. Well, it seems
you don't care what you support as long as it is pro-Judyth .... and
you think it gives you an opening to slam someone who calls Judyth on
her lack of documentation.
Careful, Pamela, do you reallllly want to go down as supporting Judyth
"just got the date wrong"?
LOL
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
I'm not having trouble with the dates at all. I know for a fact that
John F. Kennedy was not the president in May 1960. And I also know for
a fact that Judyth was at the Indiana Science Fair in May 1960.
Maybe hubby can explain it to you.
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
On the other hand, we can only .. and always ... count on Pamela for
one thing. ;-)))))
Any reason you are obsessed with me ... maybe try paying attention to
and addressing the evidence if you are going to appear on everyone's
heels everywhere.
Just a thought.
>
>Pamela McElwain-Brown
>www.in-broad-daylight.com
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
You seem to be missing the point yet again here...or you're off on the
false alternative flight again.
>
> Maybe hubby can explain it to you.
Afraid we all gave up trying to make sense of your posts aeons ago,
Barb. Surprised yours hasn't helped you grab a clue.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
Nobody can begin to compete with you, Barb. You are in a category all
your own.
>
> Any reason you are obsessed with me ... maybe try paying attention to
> and addressing the evidence if you are going to appear on everyone's
> heels everywhere.
How can you possibly object to that, Barb? Once again, it is you who
jumped into this thread.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
John McAdams
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> Any reason you are obsessed with me ... maybe try paying attention to
>> and addressing the evidence if you are going to appear on everyone's
>> heels everywhere.
>
>How can you possibly object to that, Barb? Once again, it is you who
>jumped into this thread.
>
Just what is the real issue with you?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> They didn't "outright reject it"--they were told to kill it. As Don Hewitt
> put it, "the door was slammed" by higher-ups at CBS. He, the segment
> producer, and reporter Mike Wallace still wanted to do the story.
>
> Martin
Oddly, that's not at all what they said in their "Dear John" letter to
Martin -- which Martin reproduces and expects us all to take at face
value.
Which is it, Martin: they simply couldn't fit the story into a 60 MINUTES
segment, or someone upstairs killed it?
You can't have it both ways.
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Okay, I'll play ... just what IS your point?
>
>>
>> Maybe hubby can explain it to you.
>
>Afraid we all gave up trying to make sense of your posts aeons ago,
>Barb. Surprised yours hasn't helped you grab a clue.
He knows when JFK became president too.
>
>Pamela McElwain-Brown
>www.in-broad-daylight.com
Martin Shackelford
correspondence with the newsgroup, I guess you will have to remain
unsatisfied. I'm not McAdams.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:09i7p3hsc73h8284j...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>If that means you would only be satisfied if I shared all of their private
>correspondence with the newsgroup, I guess you will have to remain
>unsatisfied. I'm not McAdams.
Nope ... it means exactly what I said. As you've told others from time
to time, Martin ... your saying so just isn't enough. Someone could
write to 60 Minutes and ask ... otherwise, I guess it will remain
unresolved.
You did post one correspondence from 60 Minutes ... so you're just
selective .... not a purist. ;-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>On 20 Jan 2008 23:55:05 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
><pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Any reason you are obsessed with me ... maybe try paying attention to
>>> and addressing the evidence if you are going to appear on everyone's
>>> heels everywhere.
>>
>>How can you possibly object to that, Barb? Once again, it is you who
>>jumped into this thread.
>>
>
>Just what is the real issue with you?
Desperation? :-)
>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
j_keven_jd
Marsh is doing his usual provocateur thing, and you are attempting to
exploit the resulting confusion in support of the illusion that you have
expressed an intelligible position on the matter in dispute. Those of us
that pay attention know the difference between critical reasoning and PR,
and what you are doing when it comes to all things Judyth is clearly the
later rather than the former.
J.K.
j_keven_jd
Who is "we all"? You and Marsh (who does not believe Judyth in the first
place)? Shakelford has even been disassociating himself from your extreme
PR positions lately. In reality, it has been your repeated efforts to
"define" things, and to get us to "acknowledge" dubious claims that has
left everyone baffled, perplexed, and scratching their heads. The brand
of PR that embraces the attack dog tactics you have employed against
anyone critical of the super fantastic elements of the Judyth saga --
regardless of their expertise, and nomatter how compelling their logic --
is not only completely transparent, but does a disservice to your client,
since it is assumed your tactics are being carried out pursuant to her
instructions. If you provoke hostility while acting as Judyth's shill,
you are creating additional hostility toward Judyth which, paradoxically,
you claim is an injustice in itself. Shakelford's recent posts cautioning
you have been quite assertive, and since he appears to be the lead PR guy,
maybe you should pay attention. You might also note that Shakelford is
not out bashing Blackburst, Mellon, Barb, etc., just because they find the
current PR strategy unconvincing.
J.K.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
> On 20 Jan 2008 23:55:05 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
>
> >> Any reason you are obsessed with me ... maybe try paying attention to
> >> and addressing the evidence if you are going to appear on everyone's
> >> heels everywhere.
>
> >How can you possibly object to that, Barb? Once again, it is you who
> >jumped into this thread.
>
> Just what is the real issue with you?
What issue? The issue with your jumping in to try to bail out Barb again?
Are you implying that something might be out of place in your cleverly
constructed slanted field?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:56:00 -0600, John McAdams
>
>
> >>> Any reason you are obsessed with me ... maybe try paying attention to
> >>> and addressing the evidence if you are going to appear on everyone's
> >>> heels everywhere.
>
> >>How can you possibly object to that, Barb? Once again, it is you who
> >>jumped into this thread.
>
> >Just what is the real issue with you?
>
> Desperation? :-)
>
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Anthony Marsh
Just because I don't believe Judyth's tale does not mean that I will sit
by idly while Team McAdams posts false information.
Anthony Marsh
Prove that she has that letter from Dungan.
She hasn't sent a copy to Martin and Martin has not sent a copy to me.
Did she save all the attachments if she was such a fan of President
Kennedy's?
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 19, 8:58 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> JLeyden...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 17, 9:38�pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Well, you're wrong about her research, as even former fellow students
>>>> quizzed by attacker Robert Johnson confirmed. You're also wrong about
>>>> Roswell Park being the only post-high evidence of her cancer research--two
>>>> years of college at St. Francis, a paper on melanoma to the Indiana
>>>> Biological Association, etc. You mention Roswell Park in passing, but fail
>>>> to note that she was the only Florida student invited to participate--a
>>>> bit more difficult to achieve than winning a class science prize, which is
>>>> what you choose to emphasize. Speaking of frauds, this post of yours would
>>>> seem to qualify.
>>>> Martin
>>> Let's do the math here, Shackelford. You say Judyth had two years of
>>> study at St. Francis but she was graduated from high school in mid-1961
>>> and entered Florida U. in the fall of 1962. That would give her only one
>>> year at St. Francis and I doubt she spent that. In any event she didn't
>>> earn an AA degreer (in English) until 1965. What was she doing with
>>> herself? Why wasn't she pursuing cancer research when the whole world is
>>> looking for a cure. What sutter nonsense this whole topic is.
>> Huh? New math? Maybe she spent one year working in a secret CIA lab
>> developing cancer as an assassination weapon.
>
>
> huh? got any evidence on any of that? or are you blowing smoke again?
>
It's a joke to make fun of your speculation.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> JGL- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Barb doesn't need bailing out. LOL. But your desperate measure might
make some wonder just how much more water your dingy can take on.<g>
Olga Korbut you are not, so instead of the verbal gymnastics ... that
you seem to think are a plus for you for some reason ... might you
just return to earth and actually address issues. You are full of
claims, allegations, insinuations and innuendo, but when it comes
to.specificity or substantiation you are decidedly running on empty.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Anthony has sufficient wit and smarts to pierce through the mush here.
Seems like you are not yet able to perceive that.
>and you are attempting to
> exploit the resulting confusion
au contraire. I am simply leveling a slanted field. I am, unlike Barb,
for example, unable to even speak plainly, as my posts have to pass the
mods. Hers don't.
Can't you see that Barb and John, also Peter, (but he doesn't seem to
abuse the privilege), are more-than-equal animals here? That WCR
apologists are protected? CTs are not? Newbies are supposed to be
fluffed up by Barb <g> so that they will follow her lead in dogpiling on
anyone saying things she doesn't agree with.
>in support of the illusion that you have
> expressed an intelligible position on the matter in dispute.
?? ?
> Those of us
> that pay attention know the difference between critical reasoning and PR,
> and what you are doing when it comes to all things Judyth is clearly the
> later rather than the former.
If you do, you'll come to appreciate Anthony's posts. They're an
aquired taste.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2008 21:00:42 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
>
>
>
>
> <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 20, 11:56 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 20 Jan 2008 23:55:05 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
> >> <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Any reason you are obsessed with me ... maybe try paying attention to
> >> >> and addressing the evidence if you are going to appear on everyone's
> >> >> heels everywhere.
>
> >> >How can you possibly object to that, Barb? Once again, it is you who
> >> >jumped into this thread.
>
> >> Just what is the real issue with you?
>
> >What issue? The issue with your jumping in to try to bail out Barb again?
> >Are you implying that something might be out of place in your cleverly
> >constructed slanted field?
>
> Barb doesn't need bailing out. LOL. But your desperate measure might
> make some wonder just how much more water your dingy can take on.<g>
Really? Your posts seem a tad grouchy lately, as though you've been
sucking on a lemon or something sour.
>
> Olga Korbut you are not, so instead of the verbal gymnastics ... that
> you seem to think are a plus for you for some reason ..
Oh no, I hope I'm speaking plainly enough to be understood.
. might you
> just return to earth and actually address issues. You are full of
> claims, allegations, insinuations and innuendo, but when it comes
> to.specificity or substantiation you are decidedly running on empty.
Of course. Let's see "claims" equate to a rumour, somebody else's
opinion, or ?
Let's make sure we're on the same page, ok?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Barb Junkkarinen
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote:
You're just playing dumb, right?
Nobody is ever on your page, Pamela ... you make sure of that.
Have you lobbed out so many claims you can't even remember them? How
seriously must you take your own assertions then!
Claims are statements you make as if they are fact. But in your case,
you never provide any substantiation. Even when asked, you refuse and
prefer to drift off airily or perform some verbal gymnastics that just
serve to dodge, dive and divert as you exit stage left rather than
actually discuss any evidence you might have for your claims.
You flat out stated that Judyth and Oswald knew one another.
What documentation ... or even credible evidence ... do you have to
support that claim?
You've stated repeatedly that Dave's Judyth page is in error, a smear
page, nothing but a smear page, etc ... but when asked to post even
one citation to substantiate your claim ... you refuse.
There's two of your cl;aims.
Got what it takes to actually pony up substantiation and discuss it?
steve
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> > On 19 Jan 2008 19:21:47 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> > <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >>> On 18 Jan 2008 22:42:45 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> >>> <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >>>>> On 18 Jan 2008 14:12:06 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> >>>>> <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >>>>>>> <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Jan 17, 12:56 am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 16 Jan 2008 23:54:48 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
> > you want, stand on your head for all I care.
>
> > She was at the science fair in May 1960.
> > She wrote that while at THAT fair she was instructed to write to
> > "President Kennedy."
> > That is IMPOSSIBLE.
> > She wrote a typical teenabe girl fan letter to the new President in
> > February 1961 ... and received a typical reply from the White House.
> > Whoopee.
> > THAT letter has NADA to do with her claim about what happened to her
> > at the May 1960 science fair.
>
> > Try to be a big boy and deal with it.
>
> Try to separate fact from fantasy. Just admit the fact that she wrote
> the letter and ignore the fantasy about why.
havent denied she wrote the letter in the first place, she still lied
about it though.
>
>
>
> >>> It's only been posted a bejillion times.
> >>>>> If you can't see her tale crashing up against the historical fact wall
> >>>>> with that ... no one can help you.
> >>>> If you can't notice that I said that a very long time ago then no one
> >>>> can help you.
>
> >>>>>>> Please tell me you do .... but then, it obviously slipped by Judyth.
> >>>>>>> Her whole silly Indiana Science Fair cloak and dagger story falls
> >>>>>>> apart when it butts up against history.
>
> >>>>>>> Barb :-)
>
> >>>>>>>> Pamela McElwain-Brown
> >>>>>>>>www.in-broad-daylight.com- Hide quoted text -