Questions for Shackelford and/or Platzman (#3)
Dave Reitzes
confidantes, Martin Shackelford and Howard Platzman, seem reluctant to
answer. For example:
Who precisely was responsible for composing these words in a widely
circulated manuscript e-mailed to "Howard and all" by Judyth Vary
Baker:
<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------
"You'll go to Cancun," Lee said. "You'll stay in a fine hotel. I’ll be
there . . ."
<QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------
Please be specific and cite your sources.
Dave
JLeyd...@aol.com
Well, we know who did not do it. At one point, Shackelford tried to
blame Judyth's ex-agent. Then, when the words defamation law suit
were mentioned, Shackelford caved completely and posted an
embarrassing and humiliating "Clarification, Correction and
Retraction." He pretty much admitted that he makes up things as he
goes along. So unless you have retained legal counsel, I wouldn't
expect you'll get an answer from him.
JGL
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/judythmenu.html
Jas
The story of Oswald talking to JVB about Cancun is entirely bogus. In 1963
Cancun was a Mexican desert wasteland, except for the Mayan civilization
history there. It wasn't even considered for tourist development until
1967.
From "Caribbean Magazine":
"In 1967 the Mexican Government recognised the importance of the tourist
industry as an active ingredient of the country's economy, and Cancun was
one of the places to become a firm candidate for foreign investment and
the development of a hotel and entertainment infrastructure, given that
its natural beauty was an obvious temptation for any traveller. The first
hotels that were built in the 70s were the Palacio Maya and Club Med, both
of which developed a great reputation."
James
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3f203976-5946-4e95...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Steve Thomas
You sum things up perfectly once again JL.
> JGL
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.jfk-online.com/judythmenu.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
More CIA tactics at work. Always threaten to take legal action to silence
a whistleblower.
> JGL
>> http://www.jfk-online.com/judythmenu.html
>
>
Steve Thomas
So anyone who sues for slander works for the CIA?
William Yates
wouldn't be a whistleblower.
Martin Shackelford
The lawsuit threat was not the reason for the correction. I wrote it after
discussing the matter with Howard Platzman, who explained how the
misunderstanding had come about. Once I became aware of the problem,
I posted the correction promptly. I "made up" nothing.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3f203976-5946-4e95...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Secondly, development of the area began in the late 1950s. It was the
Cancun RESORT that wasn't developed until the early 1970s.
Cancun had two Mayan archaeological sites, which were the focus of
Judyth's interest in the area.
A book published in 1962 talked about visiting the area as a tourist the
previous year.
There was a hotel on a nearby island, and boat transportation between
the two.
Like some others here, you confuse the origins of the RESORT with
the origins of visiting the area--they aren't the same thing.
Martin
"Jas" <jst...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:484056dd$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Barb Junkkarinen
>Oswald allegedly said: ""You'll go to Cancun," Lee said. "You'll stay in a
>fine hotel. I’ll be there . . ."
>
>The story of Oswald talking to JVB about Cancun is entirely bogus. In 1963
>Cancun was a Mexican desert wasteland, except for the Mayan civilization
>history there. It wasn't even considered for tourist development until
>1967.
>
>From "Caribbean Magazine":
>
>"In 1967 the Mexican Government recognised the importance of the tourist
>industry as an active ingredient of the country's economy, and Cancun was
>one of the places to become a firm candidate for foreign investment and
>the development of a hotel and entertainment infrastructure, given that
>its natural beauty was an obvious temptation for any traveller. The first
>hotels that were built in the 70s were the Palacio Maya and Club Med, both
>of which developed a great reputation."
>
>James
Exactly correct, James ... if you google, you'll find no end to the
threads and posts on this ... complete with all the excuses,
explanations and changes that Team Judyth has asserted over the years.
It's really quite entertaining.<g> Martin never quits trying though.
Barb :-)
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> First of all, Cancun has been on maps of the area since the 1700s.
> Secondly, development of the area began in the late 1950s. It was the
> Cancun RESORT that wasn't developed until the early 1970s.
> Cancun had two Mayan archaeological sites, which were the focus of
> Judyth's interest in the area.
> A book published in 1962 talked about visiting the area as a tourist the
> previous year.
> There was a hotel on a nearby island, and boat transportation between
> the two.
> Like some others here, you confuse the origins of the RESORT with
> the origins of visiting the area--they aren't the same thing.
>
> Martin
Dave Reitzes
> The lawsuit threat was not the reason for the correction.
This seems somehow inconsistent with another recent Martin post:
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------
One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the
information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing
with an expensive phony lawsuit.
Martin
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------
I wrote it after
> discussing the matter with Howard Platzman, who explained how the
> misunderstanding had come about.
How did it come about?
And why did Howard previously claim HE wrote the passage in question?
How did THAT "misunderstanding" come about?
Who DID write it, Martin?
Why can't you answer a simple question?
Once I became aware of the problem,
> I posted the correction promptly. I "made up" nothing.
>
> Martin
>
>
> <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3f203976-5946-4e95...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On May 30, 11:32 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > There are some questions about Judyth that two of her most intimate
> > confidantes, Martin Shackelford and Howard Platzman, seem reluctant to
> > answer. For example:
>
> > Who precisely was responsible for composing these words in a widely
> > circulated manuscript e-mailed to "Howard and all" by Judyth Vary
> > Baker:
>
> > <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------
>
> > "You'll go to Cancun," Lee said. "You'll stay in a fine hotel. I’ll be
> > there . . ."
>
> > <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------
>
> > Please be specific and cite your sources.
>
> > Dave
>
> Well, we know who did not do it. At one point, Shackelford tried to
> blame Judyth's ex-agent. Then, when the words defamation law suit
> were mentioned, Shackelford caved completely and posted an
> embarrassing and humiliating "Clarification, Correction and
> Retraction." He pretty much admitted that he makes up things as he
> goes along. So unless you have retained legal counsel, I wouldn't
> expect you'll get an answer from him.
>
> JGL
Dave
Jas
The JVB statement about Oswald is obviously trying to portray Cancun as we
now know it as being a resort. It reeks of modern-day Cancun, and is
obviously and blatantly her mistake in mentioning this as part of her story.
I've got news for you, "A fine hotel" was definitely not on the east coast
of the Yucatan in 1963. Maybe a few fisherman shacks and such, but no "fine
hotel."
Now, had JVB said something to the effect of "an extremely isolated and
desolate place on the eastern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula where we could
camp out," it would be miles more believable.
James
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:rm90k.3193$xZ....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
Anthony Marsh
Many WC defenders borrow their tactics directly from the CIA.
Jas
http://www.sunofcancun.com/history-cancun-mexico.php
James
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:97d07ae5-fb4d-497e...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
>Martin, read
>http://www.sunofcancun.com/history-cancun-mexico.php
>
>James
Nice try, James ... he's seen it. He's seen more. But this is Judyth
... and no one has yet found the end point of how far Martin can ..and
will ... go to explain away, excuse, adapt ...whatever ...reality to
accommodate her story... regardless of how it makes him look.
Barb :-)
paul seaton
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ilf6449akl0hbun60...@4ax.com...
> On 1 Jun 2008 20:20:57 -0400, "Jas" <jst...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Martin, read
>>http://www.sunofcancun.com/history-cancun-mexico.php
>>
>>James
>
> Nice try, James ... he's seen it. He's seen more. But this is Judyth
> ... and no one has yet found the end point of how far Martin can ..and
> will ... go to explain away, excuse, adapt ...whatever ...reality to
> accommodate her story... regardless of how it makes him look.
>
> Barb :-)
And yet, Barb, is not *loyalty* among the cardinal virtues ?
Martin has declared himself for Lady Judyth. The joust is not exactly going
her way, and yet Martin has declared himself for Lady Judyth.
We read stories from the trenches of the Somme how ordinary guys like us sat
there in a pile of bones and mud and stay LOYAL, boys, to your comrade, even
unto the final hour. Look at the German Generals of WW2. I'm sure at least
one of them must have noticed that what they were fighting for was a pile of
shit and was tempted to go take a quiet airoplane to surrender to Monty (
not Patton you hear ? ) but what held him back was *loyalty* to Franz und
Hans und Herrrrmann. many of our folk heroes are simple folk who faught a
lost cause to the last, and we do not despise them for that. If this is your
current position , Martin, please try to indicate by some code... some
cypher known only to you... that you are under the lash of Fair Lady
Loyalty...and we will look for a sign... some slack comma or adjacent
erroneous full stop .... that will tell us the real Martin Shakelford who
posted here quite harmlessly & often informatively for years is actually
alive & well & merely living up to a noble ideal behind a facade of
continued belief ?
Would that be impertinent ? ;-)
Steve Thomas
Ill ask again. So anyone who sues for slander works for the CIA?
>
>
>
> >>> JGL
> >>>>http://www.jfk-online.com/judythmenu.html-Hide quoted text -
Martin Shackelford
and
found out what the problem had been. What I found was that some of the
information was definitely wrong, and some was uncertain. Rather than
take it further, which would have been more than a little difficult under
the
circumstances (he said, she said situations, for example) I simply chose to
retract it all, rather than risk a lawsuit over a possible error.
The two posts aren't inconsistent, just address different aspects of the
matter.
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fd0f29c7-b26d-40f3...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
very limited information.
There was a hotel on the nearby island of Cozumel as early as 1962--boat
transportation to the Mayan sites at Cancun was available. It was the Mayan
sites that interested Judyth, so the idea that she "must" have been
referring
to the resort is ill-informed.
By the way, there was a major resort for fishing by then located some
miles SOUTH of Cancun--on that east coast which you say had no hotels.
She later went on an archaeological trip in Israel, where it was necessary
for her to ride a donkey for a considerable distance to reach the site. She
was never much for resort vacations.
Martin
"Jas" <jst...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4842f58f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Martin Shackelford
it is the ultimate source of truth.
I examined material on a couple of dozen websites, and got a much
fuller accounting of the situation. I posted a summary here, with
ALL sources cited.
Martin
"Jas" <jst...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4843...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Martin Shackelford
this matter, citing MANY websites, not just a selected one.
I can understand your sympathy for James, as you, too, cited ONE
website in making your claim--one to which Robert Chapman had
directed us. Robert, of course, had long been a Judyth attacker.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ilf6449akl0hbun60...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
I find it highly amusing that a number of Judyth attackers have concluded
that, deep down, I MUST "recognize" that they are right.
Some of the WC supporters seem to feel the same way about conspiracy
belief--it "can't" be honest, so it must be a con.
Martin
"paul seaton" <paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:4843...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Barb, you know very well that I posted a detailed factual summary of
>this matter, citing MANY websites, not just a selected one.
>I can understand your sympathy for James, as you, too, cited ONE
>website in making your claim--one to which Robert Chapman had
>directed us. Robert, of course, had long been a Judyth attacker.
>
>Martin
Martin, you know very well that the explanations and excuses were all
over the map before you landed on Cozumel (which I posted had a hotel)
and a boat to the coast. I don't recall the order but included were:
Cancun was not the destination, Chichen Itza was and there's a hotel
there....then access from Cancun became a problem, Cancun WAS the
destination because of some ruins there but they would stay in a hotel
in "nearby" Merida (until it was pointed out that is some 200 miles
away and there was no real road built yet), then there was the first
one ... that Judyth never said Cancun at all, her agent did it ... no
wait, it wasn't the agent, it was Howard...and I'm sure there were
more. Pretty much a keystone kop scramble ...which seemd to be mostly
your doing, not Judyth's.
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
> Martin, you're reaching. Give it a rest my friend.
>
> The JVB statement about Oswald is obviously trying to portray Cancun as
> we now know it as being a resort. It reeks of modern-day Cancun, and is
No, it doesn't. The context was going to Mayan ruins, not staying at a
resort.
> obviously and blatantly her mistake in mentioning this as part of her
> story. I've got news for you, "A fine hotel" was definitely not on the
> east coast of the Yucatan in 1963. Maybe a few fisherman shacks and
> such, but no "fine hotel."
>
So your claim is that there were no fine hotels in Mexico? Only in the
United States?
Michael O'Dell
Michael
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:nxO0k.7162$nW2....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
Jas
Shackelford. I just take some shots whenever I happen to come across any
pertinent info.
I know that he would, if we could set the "Wayback Machine" to 1963 and
literally take him on an expedition through the jungles to the east coast
of the Yucatan to point out the desolation of the place, still believe in
Judyth, no matter what was there.
James
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ilf6449akl0hbun60...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
>Barb, thanks for the nice words. Yes, I'm aware of the recalcitrant Mr.
>Shackelford. I just take some shots whenever I happen to come across any
>pertinent info.
>
>I know that he would, if we could set the "Wayback Machine" to 1963 and
>literally take him on an expedition through the jungles to the east coast
>of the Yucatan to point out the desolation of the place, still believe in
>Judyth, no matter what was there.
>
>James
On that, you are no doubt 1000% correct.
Welcome to the neighnorhood.
Barb :-)
Michael O'Dell
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:z7ydnQF20tg4Zd7V...@comcast.com...
> Jas wrote:
>> Martin, you're reaching. Give it a rest my friend.
>>
>> The JVB statement about Oswald is obviously trying to portray Cancun as
>> we now know it as being a resort. It reeks of modern-day Cancun, and is
>
> No, it doesn't. The context was going to Mayan ruins, not staying at a
> resort.
>
Really? Where is that context established? I think you are mistaking the
explanations offered later for the context in which the statement
appeared. Not the same thing.
>> obviously and blatantly her mistake in mentioning this as part of her
>> story. I've got news for you, "A fine hotel" was definitely not on the
>> east coast of the Yucatan in 1963. Maybe a few fisherman shacks and such,
>> but no "fine hotel."
>>
>
> So your claim is that there were no fine hotels in Mexico? Only in the
> United States?
>
Remember when you denied distorting what people say? Well, here you go.
He clearly said, "east coast of the Yucatan in 1963". He did not say
"Mexico".
Steve Thomas
> Jas wrote:
> > Martin, you're reaching. Give it a rest my friend.
>
> > The JVB statement about Oswald is obviously trying to portray Cancun as
> > we now know it as being a resort. It reeks of modern-day Cancun, and is
>
> No, it doesn't. The context was going to Mayan ruins, not staying at a
> resort.
>
> > obviously and blatantly her mistake in mentioning this as part of her
> > story. I've got news for you, "A fine hotel" was definitely not on the
> > east coast of the Yucatan in 1963. Maybe a few fisherman shacks and
> > such, but no "fine hotel."
>
> So your claim is that there were no fine hotels in Mexico?
Point out where he said there were no fine hotels in MEXICO, your
making stuff up again Marsh.
Only in the
> United States?
>
>
>
> > Now, had JVB said something to the effect of "an extremely isolated and
> > desolate place on the eastern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula where we
> > could camp out," it would be miles more believable.
>
> > James
>
> > "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >news:rm90k.3193$xZ....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >> First of all, Cancun has been on maps of the area since the 1700s.
> >> Secondly, development of the area began in the late 1950s. It was the
> >> Cancun RESORT that wasn't developed until the early 1970s.
> >> Cancun had two Mayan archaeological sites, which were the focus of
> >> Judyth's interest in the area.
> >> A book published in 1962 talked about visiting the area as a tourist the
> >> previous year.
> >> There was a hotel on a nearby island, and boat transportation between
> >> the two.
> >> Like some others here, you confuse the origins of the RESORT with
> >> the origins of visiting the area--they aren't the same thing.
>
> >> Martin
>
> >> "Jas" <jste...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>news:484056dd$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>> Oswald allegedly said: ""You'll go to Cancun," Lee said. "You'll stay
> >>> in a fine hotel. I'll be there . . ."
>
> >>> The story of Oswald talking to JVB about Cancun is entirely bogus. In
> >>> 1963 Cancun was a Mexican desert wasteland, except for the Mayan
> >>> civilization history there. It wasn't even considered for tourist
> >>> development until 1967.
>
> >>> From "Caribbean Magazine":
>
> >>> "In 1967 the Mexican Government recognised the importance of the
> >>> tourist industry as an active ingredient of the country's economy,
> >>> and Cancun was one of the places to become a firm candidate for
> >>> foreign investment and the development of a hotel and entertainment
> >>> infrastructure, given that its natural beauty was an obvious
> >>> temptation for any traveller. The first hotels that were built in the
> >>> 70s were the Palacio Maya and Club Med, both of which developed a
> >>> great reputation."
>
> >>> James
>
> >>> <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:3f203976-5946-4e95...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> On May 30, 11:32 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> There are some questions about Judyth that two of her most intimate
> >>>> confidantes, Martin Shackelford and Howard Platzman, seem reluctant to
> >>>> answer. For example:
>
> >>>> Who precisely was responsible for composing these words in a widely
> >>>> circulated manuscript e-mailed to "Howard and all" by Judyth Vary
> >>>> Baker:
>
> >>>> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------
>
> >>>> "You'll go to Cancun," Lee said. "You'll stay in a fine hotel. I'll be
> >>>> there . . ."
>
> >>>> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------
>
> >>>> Please be specific and cite your sources.
>
> >>>> Dave
>
> >>> Well, we know who did not do it. At one point, Shackelford tried to
> >>> blame Judyth's ex-agent. Then, when the words defamation law suit
> >>> were mentioned, Shackelford caved completely and posted an
> >>> embarrassing and humiliating "Clarification, Correction and
> >>> Retraction." He pretty much admitted that he makes up things as he
> >>> goes along. So unless you have retained legal counsel, I wouldn't
> >>> expect you'll get an answer from him.
>
> >>> JGL- Hide quoted text -
JLeyd...@aol.com
> The lawsuit threat was not the reason for the correction. I wrote it after
> discussing the matter with Howard Platzman, who explained how the
> misunderstanding had come about. Once I became aware of the problem,
> I posted the correction promptly. I "made up" nothing.
>
> Martin
> I find it strange that the guy who had to issue that humiliating mea
> culpa, "Clarifications, Correction and Retraction Regarding Judyth's
> Agent" (never saw anything like it) would have the chutzpah to
> challenge any one else's truthfulness. I mean you pleaded guilty to
> peddling "inaccurate information," retracted assertions that Cox
> "snookered" Judyth and "rewrote" her ms.as well as dropped your
> assertion that he demanded "co-author credit" and confessed that
> therer was no "agents messed-up version" of Judyth's work, as you
> frequently charged.. BTW, I think the way you caved on this when >Judyth was still blaming Cox on another forum for messing up her >ms. was the thing that first soured her on you.
>
> JGL
>
>
> <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3f203976-5946-4e95...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On May 30, 11:32 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > There are some questions about Judyth that two of her most intimate
> > confidantes, Martin Shackelford and Howard Platzman, seem reluctant to
> > answer. For example:
>
> > Who precisely was responsible for composing these words in a widely
> > circulated manuscript e-mailed to "Howard and all" by Judyth Vary
> > Baker:
>
> > <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------
>
> > "You'll go to Cancun," Lee said. "You'll stay in a fine hotel. I’ll be
> > there . . ."
>
> > <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------
>
> > Please be specific and cite your sources.
>
> > Dave
>
> Well, we know who did not do it. At one point, Shackelford tried to
> blame Judyth's ex-agent. Then, when the words defamation law suit
> were mentioned, Shackelford caved completely and posted an
> embarrassing and humiliating "Clarification, Correction and
> Retraction." He pretty much admitted that he makes up things as he
> goes along. So unless you have retained legal counsel, I wouldn't
> expect you'll get an answer from him.
>
> JGL
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.jfk-online.com/judythmenu.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dave Reitzes
> When the agent insisted the info wasn't true, I did some further checking
What kind of checking?
> and
> found out what the problem had been.
What was the problem?
What I found was that some of the
> information was definitely wrong,
Which information? How did you know? What was the correct information,
and what was your source?
>and some was uncertain.
Which information was uncertain? Why was it uncertain?
Rather than
> take it further, which would have been more than a little difficult under
> the
> circumstances (he said, she said situations, for example) I simply chose to
> retract it all, rather than risk a lawsuit over a possible error.
What, then, is the truth of the matter?
> The two posts aren't inconsistent, just address different aspects of the
> matter.
>
> Martin
So in the end, who precisely was responsible for composing these words
in a widely circulated manuscript e-mailed to "Howard and all" by
Judyth Vary Baker:
<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------
"You'll go to Cancun," Lee said. "You'll stay in a fine hotel. I’ll be
there . . ."
<QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------
Please be specific and cite your source(s).
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fd0f29c7-b26d-40f3...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 31, 3:09 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Once again, the truth seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp.
> > The lawsuit threat was not the reason for the correction.
>
> This seems somehow inconsistent with another recent Martin post:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> Impertinent? More like delusional.
> I find it highly amusing that a number of Judyth attackers have concluded
> that, deep down, I MUST "recognize" that they are right.
> Some of the WC supporters seem to feel the same way about conspiracy
> belief--it "can't" be honest, so it must be a con.
>
> Martin
If there's no con involved, why can't you provide direct answers to
questions you have been asked numerous times, for example:
1. Why did young Judyth Vary write a letter to President John F. Kennedy?
Did anyone direct Judyth to write this letter to JFK, and, if so, who? Do
you have any reason to believe that the letter was conceived at any
particular place and time, and, if so, where and when?
2. Judyth told me in 2000 that she had been interviewed at length by an
expert on the subject of HIV. Who was this expert and why did he (or she)
interview Judyth? What did the expert conclude?
3. Who precisely was responsible for composing these words in a widely
circulated manuscript e-mailed to "Howard and all" by Judyth Vary Baker:
<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------
"You'll go to Cancun," Lee said. "You'll stay in a fine hotel. I’ll be
there . . ."
<QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------
Please be specific and, as always, cite your sources.
> "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4843...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:ilf6449akl0hbun60...@4ax.com...
Dave
Jas
5, 9, 10, 13, 17? Or, how about all prime numbers? Would that do it?
Here's another source http://www.cancun.bz/cancun_info/cancun_history.php
Do me a favor and read all of it.
James
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:nxO0k.7162$nW2....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
Martin Shackelford
lawsuits whether the allegations are factual or not, just to intimidate
critics.
These are called SLAP suits.
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:46b9c10e-455b-4497...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
1787: shows "Cancun"
1847: shows "Cankun"
2) A summary of the facts--from multiple websites, not just one:
Your source appears to be the Wikipedia entry on Cancun, the "History"
section of which makes no mention of any history prior to the 1970s--though
we know it was on maps from the 1700s and 1800s.
The article does mention that there are Mayan ruins in Cancun, which would
explain Judyth's interest in the location.
Lonely Planet mentions that Cancun was, prior to 1970, a village near the
Mayan ruins.
International Circuit mentions that, during the Mayan period, Cancun was "a
busy trading center." It mentions that the area remained largely independent
of the Spanish, with frequent uprisings.
MexOnline notes that the Mayan El Rey occupied what is now the "hotel zone"
of Cancun.
Caribbean Magazine notes that the area was an important commercial and
religious center. The area became known as the Mayan Riviera.
Segisys notes that from the 1400s to 1968, Cancun was "sparsely populated."
History of Cancun Mexico website indicates that Cancun was a village prior
to being turned into a resort. It also mentions that the largest town nearby
was Merida.
BookIt notes that Cancun has a major museum focusing on the history of the
area.
The Essential Traveler notes that work to turn Cancun into a tourist resort
began in the 1950s, not the 1970s, but was COMPLETED in the 1970s, due to an
additional 1971 grant.
FodorTravel notes that the area has been continuously occupied for centuries
by Mayan people. It was a trade center, but not a major one, and contains
two Mayan ruins. It was the destination of refugees from a series of
uprisings against the Spanish.
TripAdvisor notes that Merida had been a city in the area since the 1500s,
and still retains buildings from that era.
The tourist guide LocoGringo.com mentions that Merida hotels have been
around for at least 100 years, the Hacienda Chichen (built in the 1500s with
stones from the Calakmul Mayan ruins) being a favorite hotel of
archaeologists visiting the area since 1923. The Mayaland was built in 1930,
and a companion hotel added in 1950. The Villa Merida dates from the 1800s.
You have to be careful with the information on websites--one site even
claims that the idea for developing Cancun came from "computer experts" in
1974--but the resort was already in operation by then. .
1) Cancun existed for a very long time before the 1970s, had been a
commercial and religious center, and is the site of at least two areas of
Mayan ruins. The current hotel zone was built on the site of a Mayan city.
Development of the area as a tourist attraction began in the 1950s and the
elements of the plan were completed in the early 1970s.
2) There were fine hotels in the area in 1963, if not in Cancun itself.
3) Merida was a popular place to stay for people interested in the area's
Mayan ruins, both at Cancun and at Chichen Itza.
Thus "You will go to Cancun [to see the ruins]. You will stay in a fine
hotel [in Merida]." As previously noted, the often-used quote from John
McAdams, "fine hotel in Cancun," was his own invention. By adding the
quotation marks, he pretended that it wasn't.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
I did experience a period of some confusion--until I explored quite a
number of websites, looked at the maps, read portions of the book
which Judyth and Lee had consulted, and evaluated it all in light of her
strong interest in archaeology.
You never did respond more than dismissively to the post summarizing
all of that information--and you have since continued to act as though
referring to a single website which says what you want to hear is
sufficient "evidence" for your position, as with your recent
congratulations to James for his "insight." There is no insight involved
in looking at one website and accepting its contents as gospel--as he
did, as you did, and as Chapman did.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:sa78449sd5u7ke0uo...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
The hotel was in Cozumel.
Martin
"Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48442a50$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Barb Junkkarinen
Can-cun is ridiculous.
On 3 Jun 2008 09:13:38 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>The question implies that McAdams' interpretation is factual.
>The hotel was in Cozumel.
ROTFL!!! Not until I posted that Cozumel did have a hotel and was
becoming a popular destination because of Jacques Cousteau. Now it
rolls off your tongue like that was alwayss the case ...and without a
half dozen explanations and excuses in between!
And Judyth never told you Cozumel, did she? You simply adopted that
after what I posted on Cozumel.
Pathetic, Martin.
paul seaton
> In the face of the supposedly "definitive" posts on the matter originally,
> I did experience a period of some confusion--
I can imagine... :-)
Anthony Marsh
> Martin, how many sources of information do you need?
>
> 5, 9, 10, 13, 17? Or, how about all prime numbers? Would that do it?
>
> Here's another source http://www.cancun.bz/cancun_info/cancun_history.php
>
> Do me a favor and read all of it.
>
You are talking about the CITY. We are talking about the region.
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:z7ydnQF20tg4Zd7V...@comcast.com...
>> Jas wrote:
>>> Martin, you're reaching. Give it a rest my friend.
>>>
>>> The JVB statement about Oswald is obviously trying to portray Cancun as
>>> we now know it as being a resort. It reeks of modern-day Cancun, and is
>> No, it doesn't. The context was going to Mayan ruins, not staying at a
>> resort.
>>
>
> Really? Where is that context established? I think you are mistaking the
> explanations offered later for the context in which the statement
> appeared. Not the same thing.
>
>>> obviously and blatantly her mistake in mentioning this as part of her
>>> story. I've got news for you, "A fine hotel" was definitely not on the
>>> east coast of the Yucatan in 1963. Maybe a few fisherman shacks and such,
>>> but no "fine hotel."
>>>
>> So your claim is that there were no fine hotels in Mexico? Only in the
>> United States?
>>
>
> Remember when you denied distorting what people say? Well, here you go.
>
> He clearly said, "east coast of the Yucatan in 1963". He did not say
> "Mexico".
>
Oh, really. Exactly what cities are included then? I pointed out the
fine hotel Hacienda Chichen which is where the Carnegie Institute
scientists stayed in 1923. Now you'll claim that isn't in the Yucatan.
You guys never change your tactics.
Anthony Marsh
> Barb, thanks for the nice words. Yes, I'm aware of the recalcitrant Mr.
> Shackelford. I just take some shots whenever I happen to come across any
> pertinent info.
>
> I know that he would, if we could set the "Wayback Machine" to 1963 and
> literally take him on an expedition through the jungles to the east
> coast of the Yucatan to point out the desolation of the place, still
> believe in Judyth, no matter what was there.
>
Again, we don't need any more of this racism. Mexico was more than a
jungle in 1963.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jun 2, 2:30 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Steve Thomas wrote:
>>> On May 31, 10:08 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> JLeyden...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>> confidantes, Martin Shackelford and Howard Platzman, seem reluctant to
>>>>>> answer. For example:
>>>>>> Who precisely was responsible for composing these words in a widely
>>>>>> circulated manuscript e-mailed to "Howard and all" by Judyth Vary
>>>>>> Baker:
>>>>>> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------
>>>>>> "You'll go to Cancun," Lee said. "You'll stay in a fine hotel. I’ll be
>>>>>> there . . ."
>>>>>> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------
>>>>>> Please be specific and cite your sources.
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>> blame Judyth's ex-agent. Then, when the words defamation law suit
>>>>> were mentioned, Shackelford caved completely and posted an
>>>>> embarrassing and humiliating "Clarification, Correction and
>>>>> Retraction." He pretty much admitted that he makes up things as he
>>>>> goes along. So unless you have retained legal counsel, I wouldn't
>>>>> expect you'll get an answer from him.
>>>> a whistleblower.
>>> So anyone who sues for slander works for the CIA?
>> Many WC defenders borrow their tactics directly from the CIA.
>>
>>
>
>
> Ill ask again. So anyone who sues for slander works for the CIA?
>
Ask me again. I never said anything like that. I said they borrow CIA
tactics.
Michael O'Dell
> In the face of the supposedly "definitive" posts on the matter originally,
> I did experience a period of some confusion--until I explored quite a
> number of websites, looked at the maps, read portions of the book
> which Judyth and Lee had consulted, and evaluated it all in light of her
> strong interest in archaeology.
Finding any possible way in which Judyth's words might make some possible
sense, is not the same as her words being true. And this one doesn't even
make that much sense.
You were confused because you refuse to allow the possibility that Judyth
made the statement up. Therefore, for a time, there was no possible
explanation in your worldview.
Grasping at various possibilities you threw them out as statements of fact,
which they were not. You've done the same at other times. This is why
nobody can take your word for anything. You will assert as fact anything
needed to keep from facing the possibility that Judyth is lying.
> You never did respond more than dismissively to the post summarizing
> all of that information--and you have since continued to act as though
> referring to a single website which says what you want to hear is
> sufficient "evidence" for your position, as with your recent
> congratulations to James for his "insight." There is no insight involved
> in looking at one website and accepting its contents as gospel--as he
> did, as you did, and as Chapman did.
The website isn't wrong is it? Cancun was not a resort in 1963 and there
were no "fine hotels" there, were there?
If Judyth meant they would stay in a "fine hotel" in Merida, she could have
said that. Merida is not Cancun. You are just defining the "area" large
enough to include a "fine hotel" somewhere. If they were really familiar
with the area they'd have used the correct names.
It's all a very flimsy excuse. She made up the statement.
Isn't it the case that the statement didn't make it into the book? Why not?
If she was quoting Oswald then that's what he said. It can't be changed
around. Why wouldn't the book repeat the same statement?
Michael
Michael O'Dell
Judyth's statement implies the "fine hotel" is in Cancun.
Finding a "fine hotel" somewhere else doesn't prove her right. You have no
proof that she meant one in Cozumel, which is not Cancun.
A more reasonable inference is that she made the statement up. But that's
the one thing you won't allow yourself to consider.
Michael
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gw61k.478$L_....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
Jas
in a fine hotel [in Merida].' "
Oh come on. Now you interject words into a quote and expect this to work so
it will magically fit your (Judyth's) scenario?
You're not dealing with stupid people, Martin.
Just because Judyth was allegedly interested in Mayan history and was the
"archaeologist" you say she was, (and actually wanted to travel there to
"study" the ruins) does not automatically place her staying in a "fine
hotel." Archaeologists spend months at digs in tents, they don't check into
local "fine hotels" to do their field work.
I think you've run out your string on this one.
And, I'm not going to waste my time and address your post point by point.
You again state untruths, and there is no way anyone can argue with
unreasonable untruths.
There was nothing anywhere near a "fine hotel" in 1963 in the area of where
Cancun now sits, and you know it. Cozumel is roughly 40-50 miles away, and
is "Cozumel" -- not "Cancun."
Face it -- Judyth lied, just like the below. (I know people rebutting "Team
Judyth" know about these tidbits, but I couldn't resist posting anyway):
"When Judyth skeptic David Lifton told her that she had made up her wild
story to spice up her boring life, she responded with a rebuttal titled "My
Boring Life" in which she tries to prove the opposite. The rebuttal is long,
but here are a few of her claims to prove her exciting life, none of which
she has apparently authenticated:
...she says she translated ancient Egyptian from papyri found on
mummies; backpacked alone across Israel; helped found a zoo in Austin,
Texas; made a phone call to the authorities that alerted them to capture an
armed man who threatened President Reagan's life; worked on the skull of
Wanda (a Pliocene whale); wrote a novel titled Six Foot Seven about Lee and
CIA operative Gerry Hemming (who is very tall); proved the falsehood of many
Mormon documents; got new laws passed in Texas against animal abuse; got
Mafia bordellos raided; painted portraits of racehorses for millionaires;
advised surgeons in New York hospitals on how to stop abdominal adhesions
from forming; made mice get cancer from cigarettes in record time; was
kidnapped by her parents when she tried to become a nun; lectured to men of
the cloth; uncovered Mafia headquarters in Houston; invented a new process
for getting magnesium out of seawater; wrote a three-act play with original
music; broke up a witch's coven and uncovered its head warlock; and sent
police and a Mormon bishop to rescue a crippled virgin from their midst who
was going to be burned alive in a telephone booth. So there, David Lifton.
At other times Judyth has claimed she is a descendant of Russian
aristocracy, Liberace learned to play piano on her family's upright when he
was a child, and when she was young she was a close friend of Dr. Seuss, who
plagiarized the word nerd from her." [From Vince Bugliosi, "Reclaiming
History," p.542 endnotes]
By the sheer numbers of her many and varied incredible claims, we simply
have to automatically believe her, right Martin?
James
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Mt71k.4413$jI5....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
Dave Reitzes
[snip]
> Thus "You will go to Cancun [to see the ruins]. You will stay in a fine
> hotel [in Merida]."
Okay, so, bracketed material aside, Judyth wrote the material you're
quoting?
If not, who precisely are you quoting?
Dave
Anthony Marsh
> I didn't cite any interpretation of McAdams. I read Judyth's statement.
> Judyth's statement implies the "fine hotel" is in Cancun.
>
No, it doesn't. You are putting your spin on it for political gain.
> Finding a "fine hotel" somewhere else doesn't prove her right. You have no
> proof that she meant one in Cozumel, which is not Cancun.
>
Yes, it does. Doesn't matter where the hotel was. Cancun was a region,
not a city in 1963.
> A more reasonable inference is that she made the statement up. But that's
> the one thing you won't allow yourself to consider.
>
Of course she made it all up. But her fantasy was about visiting the
Mayan ruins. Not sunbathing at a world class resort.
paul seaton
hahahahahahaha !!!!!! I never saw all that before !!! "broke up a witch's
coven and uncovered its head warlock" !!!
sent
> police and a Mormon bishop to rescue a crippled virgin from their midst
> who was going to be burned alive in a telephone booth.
!!! wonderful !!!
> made mice get cancer from cigarettes in record time
Shit, dis dame is sumpthin else, huh ???? !! hahahahaha!! Not only all
this, but in her latest act of unsurpassable greatness, she provided the
final solution to the Kennedy Assassination !!
And she's radiantly beautiful too . Just check her picture.
Truly She Is Wonder Woman. How come she didn't do anything to stop 9/11 ??
Judy ? If you pick up on that one, I want 10% ok ??
Martin Shackelford
Not everyone agrees, Barb.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jo0b44h2gg2pnlev0...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
you just find them a different hotel. :-)
On 4 Jun 2008 12:11:36 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
Martin Shackelford
credit from Chapman for first posting that Cancun didn't exist until the
early 1970s--though why you'd want credit for an error, I don't know).
I didn't get the Cozumel hotel information from anything you posted--it
was in my summary post based on the 1962 book consulted by Judyth
and Lee.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2r0b44ldqtl7lpho1...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
Spain went.
Martin
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3v2dnShspLOt1NjV...@comcast.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
posted the same site I did, and before I did, I was not aware of it or
I would have mentioned it in my post. I don't think I've ever seen
Chapman post here, actually.
As for Cozumel ... I don't recall you saying it before I pointed out
Cousteau had made it a diving tourist destination, but then you have
tossed so many hotels in the air looking for one that would stick,
anything is possible.
And you weren't even getting any of this from Judyth .. you were
making up new possibilities by poring thru the book she says she and
Oswald read together and doing googlinjg ... just looking for anything
you thought would work.
Your credibility on this issue went down the can(cun) a very long time
ago, Martin. But at least we all got a nice tour of the Yucatan. :-)
On 4 Jun 2008 13:19:47 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
Martin Shackelford
You snipped it because the context was a discussion of the interpretations
being placed on the statement, not a discussion of the authorship--it was a
draft by Judyth. That much hasn't been at issue.
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:560c4053-91e9-448c...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Michael O'Dell
Michael
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zCr1k.648$L_....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Don't play games, Dave.
>You snipped it because the context was a discussion of the interpretations
>being placed on the statement, not a discussion of the authorship--it was a
>draft by Judyth. That much hasn't been at issue.
WAIT a minute! You sure did make an issue of it at one time ...saying
some unscrupulous agent put that in.
Geesh, Martin, it would be better for both you and Judyth if once
you've floated an explanation or excuse you'd just stick to it. Cancun
has to hold the record for revisions.
Michael O'Dell
>I know you want to take credit for everything, Barb (you tried to take
> credit from Chapman for first posting that Cancun didn't exist until the
> early 1970s--though why you'd want credit for an error, I don't know).
> I didn't get the Cozumel hotel information from anything you posted--it
> was in my summary post based on the 1962 book consulted by Judyth
> and Lee.
>
> Martin
>
"You have a gift for ignoring the main point and focusing on minor ones."
- Martin, 5/31/08
Jas
http://mayaruins.com/yucmap.gif
Do you see any near the area where Cancun is, or are you now going to move
Cancun near the nearest ruin site?
James
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Mt71k.4413$jI5....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
Dave Reitzes
> Don't play games, Dave.
> You snipped it because the context was a discussion of the interpretations
> being placed on the statement, not a discussion of the authorship--it was a
> draft by Judyth. That much hasn't been at issue.
>
> Martin
Thank you.
See, wasn't that easy?
Dave \:^)
Dave Reitzes
> On 4 Jun 2008 15:44:11 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> >Don't play games, Dave.
> >You snipped it because the context was a discussion of the interpretations
> >being placed on the statement, not a discussion of the authorship--it was a
> >draft by Judyth. That much hasn't been at issue.
>
> WAIT a minute! You sure did make an issue of it at one time ...saying
> some unscrupulous agent put that in.
If you keep Martin talking long enough, he eventually forgets what his
earlier stories were.
> Geesh, Martin, it would be better for both you and Judyth if once
> you've floated an explanation or excuse you'd just stick to it. Cancun
> has to hold the record for revisions.
It's not easy to keep up, but I try. \:^)
http://www.jfk-online.com/judythstory.html
> >"Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
wrote:
> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ilf6449akl0hbun60...@4ax.com...
>
> > On 1 Jun 2008 20:20:57 -0400, "Jas" <jste...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>Martin, read
> >>http://www.sunofcancun.com/history-cancun-mexico.php
>
> >>James
>
> > ... and no one has yet found the end point of how far Martin can ..and
> > will ... go to explain away, excuse, adapt ...whatever ...reality to
> > accommodate her story... regardless of how it makes him look.
>
> > Barb :-)
>
> Martin has declared himself for Lady Judyth. The joust is not exactly going
> her way, and yet Martin has declared himself for Lady Judyth.
> We read stories from the trenches of the Somme how ordinary guys like us sat
> there in a pile of bones and mud and stay LOYAL, boys, to your comrade, even
> unto the final hour. Look at the German Generals of WW2. I'm sure at least
> one of them must have noticed that what they were fighting for was a pile of
> shit and was tempted to go take a quiet airoplane to surrender to Monty (
> not Patton you hear ? ) but what held him back was *loyalty* to Franz und
> Hans und Herrrrmann. many of our folk heroes are simple folk who faught a
> lost cause to the last, and we do not despise them for that. If this is your
> current position , Martin, please try to indicate by some code... some
> cypher known only to you... that you are under the lash of Fair Lady
> Loyalty...and we will look for a sign... some slack comma or adjacent
> erroneous full stop .... that will tell us the real Martin Shakelford who
> posted here quite harmlessly & often informatively for years is actually
> alive & well & merely living up to a noble ideal behind a facade of
> continued belief ?
> Would that be impertinent ? ;-)
Ha ha. I think Martin's "loyalty" isn't to Judyth per se, but this is very
amusing.
There are, of course, much higher virtues than loyalty, which is only
worth as much as what or who one is loyal to. "Loyalty is my honor" was
the motto of the Waffen SS. Blind loyalty is expected of dogs, but human
beings have the ability and the right to change allegiances for the sake
of higher principles. By definition, one is loyal to one's friends, but
this loyalty is at best an expression of something higher and deeper--the
values one shares with one's friend. It is true friendship, though
seemingly disloyal, to oppose a friend when you believe s/he is taking the
wrong path.
/sandy mccroskey
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Jun 4, 4:46?pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 4 Jun 2008 15:44:11 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>>
>> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >Don't play games, Dave.
>> >You snipped it because the context was a discussion of the interpretations
>> >being placed on the statement, not a discussion of the authorship--it was a
>> >draft by Judyth. That much hasn't been at issue.
>>
>> WAIT a minute! You sure did make an issue of it at one time ...saying
>> some unscrupulous agent put that in.
>
>
>If you keep Martin talking long enough, he eventually forgets what his
>earlier stories were.
Seems like!
>
>
>> Geesh, Martin, it would be better for both you and Judyth if once
>> you've floated an explanation or excuse you'd just stick to it. Cancun
>> has to hold the record for revisions.
>
>
>It's not easy to keep up, but I try. \:^)
That you do. And well. :-)
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
for your information. Cancun was bracketed by two Mayan ruins. Your map
may only list major sites.
El Meco is just north of Cancun, and El Rey is somewhat south of Cancun.
I sent a map of Quintana Roo Mayan sites to Tony to add to the group.
Martin
"Jas" <jst...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4846e0d0$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> Martin, check this map of the Mayan ruins on the Yucatan Peninsula
> http://mayaruins.com/yucmap.gif
>
> Do you see any near the area where Cancun is, or are you now going to
> move Cancun near the nearest ruin site?
>
What the Hell is that map supposed to prove?
It doesn't even show any ruins. Are you really trying to claim that
there were no Mayan ruins in Cancun?
Here I quote from Cancun & the Yucatan for DUMMIES page 152:
Cancun has its own Mayan ruins, Ruinas del Rey (see the "Cancun
Orientation Map" in Chapter 10), a small site that's less impressive
than the ruins at Tulum or Chichen-Itza.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/QuintanaRooMap.jpg
Michael O'Dell
Michael
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RJP1k.4263$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
Dave Reitzes
> On 5 Jun 2008 00:34:46 -0400, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 4, 4:46?pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 4 Jun 2008 15:44:11 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> >> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >Don't play games, Dave.
> >> >You snipped it because the context was a discussion of the interpretations
> >> >being placed on the statement, not a discussion of the authorship--it was a
> >> >draft by Judyth. That much hasn't been at issue.
>
> >> WAIT a minute! You sure did make an issue of it at one time ...saying
> >> some unscrupulous agent put that in.
>
> >If you keep Martin talking long enough, he eventually forgets what his
> >earlier stories were.
>
> Seems like!
>
>
>
> >> Geesh, Martin, it would be better for both you and Judyth if once
> >> you've floated an explanation or excuse you'd just stick to it. Cancun
> >> has to hold the record for revisions.
>
> >It's not easy to keep up, but I try. \:^)
>
> That you do. And well. :-)
>
> Barb :-)
I've updated my article to include Martin's latest revelations on the
Cancun matter:
http://www.jfk-online.com/judythstory.html
As for Martin's statement that the authorship of the dialogue "hasn't
been at issue" . . . well, let's see:
Howard Platzman, alt.assassination.jfk post, December 14, 2000: "David
Lifton is correct. One draft of a chapter of the book does mention a 'fine
hotel' in Cancun. For the record . . . this was my mistake and mine
alone."
Judyth Vary Baker, quoted in an alt.conspiracy.jfk post of Howard
Platzman, November 15, 2003: "[The circulated draft chapter containing the
dialogue about Cancun] WAS WRITTEN FOR JUDYTH AFTER CONVERSATIONS AND
E-MAILS BETWEEN HER AND DR. HOWARD PLATZMAN, JUDYTH'S CO-AUTHOR. PLATZMAN
WROTE SOME OF THE FINAL MATERIALS BECAUSE THEY WERE SO UPSETTING TO JUDYTH
CONCERNING LEE OSWALD'S LAST WORDS TO HER, AND HIS DEATH SCENES. JUDYTH
RECEIVED THESE CHAPTERS AND HAD BEEN IN THE PROCESS OF CORRECTING THIS
MANUSCRIPT WHEN IT WAS SECRETLY COPIED. IN FACT, JUDYTH HAD NOT EVEN READ
ALL OF THIS CHAPTER IN JANUARY 2000 TO CORRECT IT. PLATZMAN WAS TRYING TO
RECONSTRUCT THE FINAL CONVERSATION BETWEEN THEM, BASED ON EMAILS,
TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS, AND JUDYTH'S FIRST MANUSCRIPT. HOWEVER, THERE
REMAINED IMPORTANT CORRECTIONS TO BE MADE . . ."
Martin Shackelford, alt.assassination.jfk post, September 5, 2004:
"There's no confusion about it for anyone who has been paying attention.
The agent [Peter Cox] added 'Cancun' to the account, Howard Platzman put
some things in dialogue form to encourage Judyth to recall what she could,
and he erroneously left in the 'Cancun' reference from the agent's
version. This was eventually corrected, but not before some uncorrected
copies were leaked to the attack group."
Martin Shackelford, alt.assassination.jfk post, September 24, 2004: "As
I've noted many times before, William, SHE DIDN'T WRITE IT--there were NO
QUOTES in what she wrote. Her agent and Howard both put some things into
quotes, to encourage her to try to remember more of what was said. At that
point, she had written no quotes herself."
Martin Shackelford, alt.assassination.jfk post, September 25, 2004: "The
agent took the Cancun reference seriously--having been given it as a
geographic locator. He and Howard were both encouraging Judyth to try and
remember what she and Lee said to each other and how they said it. As a
result, either the agent or Howard took material from the agent's
manuscript and created the quote which has been the subject of so much
silly fussing."
Judyth Vary Baker, Internet forum post, October 9, 2004: "The Cancun
matter was an insertion by my literary agent that was missed by
Dr.Platzman [sic]. He took the blame for allowing it to remain in the
manuscript. But it was my fault, too. A section of dialogue that I wrote,
and take responsibility for, includes several phrases that I do not,
however, remember writing as they are now shown on the internet [sic]. Lee
indeed said we would meet in a fine hotel, but his tone of voice was so
full of irony I didn't know if he was joking. He never said we would meet
in Cancun. Typos and errors will happen. That we would meet in an area
NEAR present-day Cancun is what was always meant, and if I typed Cancun
instead, God forgive me, as Reitzes won't, even though that section was
clearly described as still in the process of being edited when it was sent
a very few for comments."
Jas
changing and updating forum posts, editing manuscript drafts,
"misinterpretations" by publishers, moving locations to Merida (which is
across the Peninsula from the Cancun area by the way), visiting Mayan ruins,
staying in a fine hotel, blah, blah, yada, yada -- is that if Judyth had
really talked with Oswald before the assassination and was indeed telling
the truth, there would be absolutely no mix-up, changes, or debate about it
at all. None. The statement would have been made, and Judyth would have
remembered exactly what words Oswald had said -- if not because Oswald and
she were so "in love" as she says and had tremendously deep feelings for
each other, but because of who Oswald was.
I mean, we're talking about one of history's most infamous assassins, and
one of history's most terrible of events, are we not? Surely Judyth would
have remembered exactly the words he had uttered -- to the tee. And, in
telling her story (either in 1963 or 1999) she would most certainly have
repeated his words exactly, and whatever publisher was listening to her
would have written down the words exactly, and would have made sure the
words were the correct words.
Instead, the way she and you have tried changing words and meanings around
over the years in referring to "Cancun" and "fine hotel," you'd think she
was trying to remember some mundane thing like if she had gone to the market
to buy shampoo on May 16th, 1966, at 10:37 AM, or at 2:32 PM.
So the inferences that can be drawn here are threefold: 1) If she can't
remember exactly those last words from Lee Harvey Oswald or exactly what he
meant, she must be a pea brain; 2) But, of course, because of her incredible
intellect and scientific knowledge and skills, she really can't be a pea
brain, so...
3) She must be lying.
The point is: It's all cold hard bunk, Martin.
James
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RJP1k.4263$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
John McAdams
Of course, even if we assume she is not lying, and we buy all the
excuses, the fact remains that the story has changed an easy
half-dozen times.
Yet we are supposed to believe that the "current Judyth story" (leave
aside that that seems to change every week) is the absolutely true
one, all the kinks worked out and cleaned up.
But that's implausible. With so many years to get it straight -- and
an equal number of years to produce a consistent story -- Team Judyth
did not.
Which means anybody whould be foolish to believe what *now* is
presented as "the authentic, absolutely true, Judyth story."
Even if nobody is lying (and I agree with you that they *are* lying)
anything we get from Team Judyth is known to be utterly unreliable.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jas
The whole tale has been effectively nullified by none other than its very
own concoctors.
James
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4849874d....@news.supernews.com...