Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Judyth and the newsgroup

244 views
Skip to first unread message

Howpl

unread,
Sep 22, 2002, 4:03:30 PM9/22/02
to
All -

I have very little time to devote to the newsgroup, so pardon me, please,
for not responding to each of you who have written in response to my
earlier post. I appreciate that it isn't exactly fair for me to "post and
run," but I have a very busy life that revolves around a full-time job, a
wife, two school-age children, and, believe it or not, commitments and
interests other than the JFK assassination. For this reason, but not for
this reason alone, I no longer publish here regularly. I simply couldn't
keep up even if I wanted to.

However, there are a few things I'd like to say, for the record. If you
insist on a response to each of the 30 e-mails sure to follow, I can't
promise you one. If you want to interpret that as ducking your question,
that is your right. It is not my intention.

1. Somone whose post I can't now locate -- but someone who identified
himself as a conspiracist -- wrote that he found John McAdams to be a
reasonable man. I don't know if John remembers, but the fact is that I
stood up for him at least a half-dozen times during the period of a year
or two that I was active in this newsgroup. But that was when I was on the
outside looking in. His handling of Judyth's story -- or the drippings of
it he has had fed to him -- have forced me to revise my opinion. It has
been suggested by more than one person that we have an even better book to
publish about who "done us wrong" and how. John done us wrong pretty bad.
I no longer recognize him as a "moderator" when he asks Mary Ferrell's
permission to post her phony denunciation of Judyth on his site but never
once asked Judyth's permission to post letters from her to others -- not
him. He clearly uses a double standard. Another example: his willingness
to publish Lifton's charges that Martin and I are con artists over and
over again, while refusing to publish much milder responses by so-called
Team Judyth. I refuse to write a book detailing all of his dishonesty
because it's just not the best use of my time.

2. Mary Ferrell's supposed denuncation is, as noted above, a complete
fraud. It is only the kindness of Judyth that prevents me, for now, from
presenting incontrovertible proof that Mary Ferrell knows that Judyth is
the genuine article. Martin and others we've sought advice from do not
want to upset a woman who is ill and simply wants to be left alone. I was
and remain the lone dissenting vote. Sorry. I look at how her self-styled
friends used Mary to destroy Judyth and, while I have some pity for her
(because they have dirtied her and she knows it), I do not respect her
needs nearly as much as the primary victim does. Those who know Judyth
know she has a huge heart and is quick to forgive. Judyth is truly the
second patsy. There is a truly ugly story here, which has ended with Mary
being whisked away to an "assisted living" facility, with the wagons
circled around her after she made her position on Judyth -- and, quite
specifically, on the newsgroup post -- abundantly clear to three persons
other than Judyth, Martin, and me. And their testimony is only a little of
what we've got to prove the post was a faked pastiche of old e-mails
discussing resolved issues.

3. Judyth has variously been described as addle-brained and a brilliant
researcher who has "inserted herself" into the tiny holes she discovered
in Lee's life. The real Judyth is of the absent-minded professor type. She
is, in fact, disorganized and emotional, but she is smart and quite sane.
The suggestion that she is delusional is a slander that McAdam's is only
to happy to publish without any evidence whatsoever -- except for the way
her e-mails strike him (yes, they ramble) or Rose the Dime-Store-
Psychologist's observation that Judyth "speaks fast" (I never noticed it;
we all speak pretty fast here in the Big Apple). We have decisively
refuted this slander by the most objective of measures. Anyone doubting
this need only ask for a lawsuit or wait for the book.

4. When will the book come out? I don't know. David Lifton promised to do
everything in his power to prevent the book from being published. He and
his friends have fed lies to stoke preexisting fears. It is they who
stirred Rose into contacting CBS, which was instrumental (she was, indeed,
their instrument) in scaring them off -- but not after spending more time
waffling on doing a story than on any other story they ever considered
doing (this they told us amidst awkward apologies). But they did get some
good, supportive evidence, which we were happy about, and they did find us
important allies, who have researched aspects of her story on their own.

5. So why didn't 60 Minutes bite? I take some of the blame for pointing
them in the direction of a key witness who denied saying what has been
elsewhere attributabed to him. Ultimately, however, the answer should be
obvious to anyone with their eyes open. They got scared. They blinked.
They wanted a smoking gun. When you come right down to it, the mainstream
press always wants a smoking gun on this subject, though it will accept
the flimsiest of evidence to air "shocking revelations" on other subjects.
Every assassination writer knows the difficulty of getting "reputable"
journalists and scholars to risk their reputations by going anywhere near
the assassination. Telling her he believed her, Mike Wallace stated very
clearly that they couldn't afford to be wrong like when they told the
world where Jimmy Hoffa was buried. He was being honest.

Even old stalwarts, like Robert Sam Anson, who I called out of the blue,
run like the devil when they begin to contemplate the jeering they will
face the moment a pro-conspiracy article hits the stands with their
byline. Anson got killed after his pieces in Vanity Fair. Just the words
"new witness" were sufficient to have him declare "no interest" and hang
up the phone. Why do you think Robert Tanenbaum wrote his tell-all in the
form of a novel? Because, like the lead character in his Corruption of
Blood, which you should all read, he is horrified at the thought of being
pegged a "buff" -- i.e., a nut -- by his peers.

5. Enough with Cancun! This Cancun nonsense represents 1 1/100,000 of
Judyth's story. It is Debra Conway's one claim to scholarship. It is
ludicrous to see so much written about it. There are many details that
needed clarifying - indeed, some continue to arise - when writing with a
co-author and an "active" agent. I couldn't possibly tell you who wrote
what first in each and every sentence of the manuscript. Does that mean
that I am a liar? Co-authoring is not nearly as easy as I expected,
especially when you live thousands of miles from your partner. The
internet is not like talking or looking at text together. And, let's be
clear: Martin is not a co-author; he is our lead researcher, if you will.
For the record, someone other than me wrote "Cancun" first. How would I
know where they planned to meet if I didn't see it in a note I took or a
page I read? So it remained in the manuscript until it was "caught." So
the area she was referring to was not known as Cancun in 1963. So what?
In the full panorama of Judyth's story, this is a mere speck. When you
write your memoirs, you can easily mix the way you know things now with
the way you knew it back when. What brand of gasoline did you put in your
car 40 years ago? Esso or Exxon? What was the airport you used to fly
out of 40 years ago? Kennedy or Ildewild? Heck, I can't even remember how
to spell what they called it before it was renamed in the honor of our
slain president. The fact that McAdams would use this "error" in his
classes as a perfect "I gotcha" would be laughable if it weren't so
appallingly simple-minded. How many "mistakes" were there in Posner's
book, John? I am quite ready to conceed that a good number of them were
genuine mistakes. Sometimes I have trouble reading my own notes, too.

If anyone chooses to find Cancun and other such tiny matters suspicious,
be my guest. You will have to spend 25 hours a day, 8 days a week
disproving all the book's other statements if, that is, "researchers" like
Lifton permit it to be published.

With apologies to the majority of those who post here - those without
personal agendas and outsized egos - the McAdams/Lifton newsgroup gets
nothing from us unless Judyth says it's OK. She has already written a
virtual book in response to the inanities uttered here, but mostly for the
record. She chooses not to subject herself to mindless and/or professional
hostility.

It is quite amazing: in all the time since Matt leaked his misshapen
version of her story (further misshapen by the wolves who pounced upon
it), no one has evidenced much interest in the heart of her story. Anyone
really interested in Judyth's story should long ago have looked into the
activities of Dr. Alton Ochsner. It is a measure of the superficiality of
McAdams et al. that this key figure in Judyth's story remains an unknown
in this group. Instead of badgering a poor woman trying to remember her
youth as well as she can, why not do some real research? It's not been
easy for us because none of us makes our living off the assassination, but
we have done what we can.

Howard Platzman


John McAdams

unread,
Sep 22, 2002, 8:44:51 PM9/22/02
to
On 22 Sep 2002 16:03:30 -0400, ho...@aol.com (Howpl) wrote:

>All -
>
>I have very little time to devote to the newsgroup, so pardon me, please,
>for not responding to each of you who have written in response to my
>earlier post. I appreciate that it isn't exactly fair for me to "post and
>run," but I have a very busy life that revolves around a full-time job, a
>wife, two school-age children, and, believe it or not, commitments and
>interests other than the JFK assassination. For this reason, but not for
>this reason alone, I no longer publish here regularly. I simply couldn't
>keep up even if I wanted to.
>

Fair enough.


>However, there are a few things I'd like to say, for the record. If you
>insist on a response to each of the 30 e-mails sure to follow, I can't
>promise you one. If you want to interpret that as ducking your question,
>that is your right. It is not my intention.
>
>1. Somone whose post I can't now locate -- but someone who identified
>himself as a conspiracist -- wrote that he found John McAdams to be a
>reasonable man. I don't know if John remembers, but the fact is that I
>stood up for him at least a half-dozen times during the period of a year
>or two that I was active in this newsgroup. But that was when I was on the
>outside looking in. His handling of Judyth's story -- or the drippings of
>it he has had fed to him -- have forced me to revise my opinion. It has
>been suggested by more than one person that we have an even better book to
>publish about who "done us wrong" and how. John done us wrong pretty bad.
>I no longer recognize him as a "moderator" when he asks Mary Ferrell's
>permission to post her phony denunciation of Judyth on his site but never
>once asked Judyth's permission to post letters from her to others -- not
>him.


I thought you said that the e-mail I published didn't *come* from
Mary.

Now you are saying that I asked Mary for permission to publish it?

Mary politely wrote me in response to my inquiry. So I owed her
something. OTHO the Judyth e-mails "leaked out." They were important
evidence about a witness who was making explosive claims. To conceal
them would have been ethically questionable.


>He clearly uses a double standard. Another example: his willingness
>to publish Lifton's charges that Martin and I are con artists over and
>over again, while refusing to publish much milder responses by so-called
>Team Judyth. I refuse to write a book detailing all of his dishonesty
>because it's just not the best use of my time.
>
>2. Mary Ferrell's supposed denuncation is, as noted above, a complete
>fraud. It is only the kindness of Judyth that prevents me, for now, from
>presenting incontrovertible proof that Mary Ferrell knows that Judyth is
>the genuine article.


Are you calling Mary a liar?


>Martin and others we've sought advice from do not
>want to upset a woman who is ill and simply wants to be left alone. I was
>and remain the lone dissenting vote. Sorry. I look at how her self-styled
>friends used Mary to destroy Judyth and, while I have some pity for her
>(because they have dirtied her and she knows it), I do not respect her
>needs nearly as much as the primary victim does.


Now Mary has "victimized" poor Judyth.

How? You denied that the e-mail I posted was really hers.


>Those who know Judyth
>know she has a huge heart and is quick to forgive. Judyth is truly the
>second patsy. There is a truly ugly story here, which has ended with Mary
>being whisked away to an "assisted living" facility, with the wagons
>circled around her after she made her position on Judyth -- and, quite
>specifically, on the newsgroup post -- abundantly clear to three persons
>other than Judyth, Martin, and me. And their testimony is only a little of
>what we've got to prove the post was a faked pastiche of old e-mails
>discussing resolved issues.
>

Then post that evidence.

Oh, I know. You don't have time right now. You aren't interested in
doing it. You are too big hearted to do it.

But the evidence isn't going to be forthcoming, is it?


>3. Judyth has variously been described as addle-brained and a brilliant
>researcher who has "inserted herself" into the tiny holes she discovered
>in Lee's life. The real Judyth is of the absent-minded professor type. She
>is, in fact, disorganized and emotional, but she is smart and quite sane.
>The suggestion that she is delusional is a slander that McAdam's is only
>to happy to publish without any evidence whatsoever -- except for the way
>her e-mails strike him (yes, they ramble) or Rose the Dime-Store-
>Psychologist's observation that Judyth "speaks fast" (I never noticed it;
>we all speak pretty fast here in the Big Apple). We have decisively
>refuted this slander by the most objective of measures. Anyone doubting
>this need only ask for a lawsuit or wait for the book.
>

But it just happens you can't tell us what your evidence is right
*now,* eh?

If you had it, you would produce it.

If you had it, you could interest a mainstream publisher, or TV
outlet.

If you had it you could humiliate me and Leyden and David Lifton and a
lot of other people.


>4. When will the book come out? I don't know. David Lifton promised to do
>everything in his power to prevent the book from being published. He and
>his friends have fed lies to stoke preexisting fears. It is they who
>stirred Rose into contacting CBS, which was instrumental (she was, indeed,
>their instrument) in scaring them off -- but not after spending more time
>waffling on doing a story than on any other story they ever considered
>doing (this they told us amidst awkward apologies). But they did get some
>good, supportive evidence, which we were happy about, and they did find us
>important allies, who have researched aspects of her story on their own.
>

But the "supportive evidence" they found is also unavailable, eh?

How come you and Martin are always touting the great "evidence" you
have, but when something slips out from Judyth is has no evidence at
all, just wild claims?


>5. So why didn't 60 Minutes bite? I take some of the blame for pointing
>them in the direction of a key witness who denied saying what has been
>elsewhere attributabed to him. Ultimately, however, the answer should be
>obvious to anyone with their eyes open. They got scared. They blinked.
>They wanted a smoking gun. When you come right down to it, the mainstream
>press always wants a smoking gun on this subject, though it will accept
>the flimsiest of evidence to air "shocking revelations" on other subjects.
>Every assassination writer knows the difficulty of getting "reputable"
>journalists and scholars to risk their reputations by going anywhere near
>the assassination. Telling her he believed her, Mike Wallace stated very
>clearly that they couldn't afford to be wrong like when they told the
>world where Jimmy Hoffa was buried. He was being honest.
>

What a coward he is! He doesn't want to be wrong on the air!


>Even old stalwarts, like Robert Sam Anson, who I called out of the blue,
>run like the devil when they begin to contemplate the jeering they will
>face the moment a pro-conspiracy article hits the stands with their
>byline. Anson got killed after his pieces in Vanity Fair. Just the words
>"new witness" were sufficient to have him declare "no interest" and hang
>up the phone. Why do you think Robert Tanenbaum wrote his tell-all in the
>form of a novel? Because, like the lead character in his Corruption of
>Blood, which you should all read, he is horrified at the thought of being
>pegged a "buff" -- i.e., a nut -- by his peers.
>

But hard evidence would change this dynamic in an instant.


>5. Enough with Cancun! This Cancun nonsense represents 1 1/100,000 of
>Judyth's story.


If she will just make up something like this, she'll make up other
stuff too.

In early stages, a cancer is probably 1/100,000 of the cells of the
body.


>It is Debra Conway's one claim to scholarship. It is
>ludicrous to see so much written about it. There are many details that
>needed clarifying - indeed, some continue to arise - when writing with a
>co-author and an "active" agent. I couldn't possibly tell you who wrote
>what first in each and every sentence of the manuscript. Does that mean
>that I am a liar? Co-authoring is not nearly as easy as I expected,
>especially when you live thousands of miles from your partner. The
>internet is not like talking or looking at text together. And, let's be
>clear: Martin is not a co-author; he is our lead researcher, if you will.
>For the record, someone other than me wrote "Cancun" first.


But Martin said you did.

>How would I
>know where they planned to meet if I didn't see it in a note I took or a
>page I read?


I agree that you didn't invent this. Somebody else did. Somebody
whose name begins with "J."


>So it remained in the manuscript until it was "caught." So
>the area she was referring to was not known as Cancun in 1963. So what?


So there would have been no reason for Lee to meet her there.


>In the full panorama of Judyth's story, this is a mere speck. When you
>write your memoirs, you can easily mix the way you know things now with
>the way you knew it back when. What brand of gasoline did you put in your
>car 40 years ago? Esso or Exxon? What was the airport you used to fly
>out of 40 years ago? Kennedy or Ildewild? Heck, I can't even remember how
>to spell what they called it before it was renamed in the honor of our
>slain president. The fact that McAdams would use this "error" in his
>classes as a perfect "I gotcha" would be laughable if it weren't so
>appallingly simple-minded. How many "mistakes" were there in Posner's
>book, John? I am quite ready to conceed that a good number of them were
>genuine mistakes. Sometimes I have trouble reading my own notes, too.
>

It's one thing to make a mistake in recounting or interpreting
evidence. It's another to claim to have *experienced* something you
could not have.

So this is like witnesses who claimed "inside knowledge" of the
"changed parade route." They have clearly read about this in
conspiracy books, and inserted it into their story.


>If anyone chooses to find Cancun and other such tiny matters suspicious,
>be my guest. You will have to spend 25 hours a day, 8 days a week
>disproving all the book's other statements if, that is, "researchers" like
>Lifton permit it to be published.
>


Why don't you self-publish it? Let everybody see it.


>With apologies to the majority of those who post here - those without
>personal agendas and outsized egos - the McAdams/Lifton newsgroup gets
>nothing from us unless Judyth says it's OK. She has already written a
>virtual book in response to the inanities uttered here, but mostly for the
>record. She chooses not to subject herself to mindless and/or professional
>hostility.
>

Why doesn't she just release her story?

Why doesn't she just show up at Lancer and/or COPA and tell it to
anybody who wants to listen? She could have an "evidence packet"
xeroxed to hand out to anybody.


>It is quite amazing: in all the time since Matt leaked his misshapen
>version of her story (further misshapen by the wolves who pounced upon
>it), no one has evidenced much interest in the heart of her story.

The heart of her story is absurd. The CIA would not hire a
high-school graduate to do cancer research. They would not use David
Ferrie's apartment as a research facility.

And they certainly would not try to kill Castro by injecting cancer
cells into him.


>Anyone
>really interested in Judyth's story should long ago have looked into the
>activities of Dr. Alton Ochsner.


If he was engaged in any "suspicious" activities, just why has nobody
discovered them?

He seems guilty of being an anti-Communist.

Now isn't that a terrible thing to be!


>It is a measure of the superficiality of
>McAdams et al. that this key figure in Judyth's story remains an unknown
>in this group. Instead of badgering a poor woman trying to remember her
>youth as well as she can, why not do some real research? It's not been
>easy for us because none of us makes our living off the assassination, but
>we have done what we can.
>

If you have any information on Oschner, just post it right here.

You are constantly alluding to "evidence" and "information" and
"proof." But somehow none of it is ever available *now.*

.John

--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Altasrecrd

unread,
Sep 22, 2002, 11:35:47 PM9/22/02
to
>john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)

>Why doesn't she just release her story?

Because it's bogus and will be laughed at.

They can't stand the prospect of the humilation that will follow.

The story is a joke. It's never going to be published.

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Sep 23, 2002, 10:33:09 AM9/23/02
to
The e-mail DIDN'T come from Mary. She didn't write it.
YOU said you published it with Mary's permission; Howard merely repeated
your claim.
Howard isn't calling Mary a liar. She, and perhaps you, were used by
others. Mary victimized no one.
And, no, for good reasons, the evidence Mary didn't write the message
won't be forthcoming. For one thing, it can't be posted on a newsgroup.

Judyth's evidence won't be posted here partly because that's exactly
what you've been consistently trying to manipulate us to do, so that you
can nit pick at it out of context, as is your wont.
As for humiliating Lifton, Leyden, and yourself, the three of you seem
to be doing a fine job of that yourselves. You don't need us.

I see that you are still harping on Cancun, and I no longer think that's
out of ignorance. When I said Howard wrote "Cancun," I was in error. I
corrected the error, and yet you persist in clinging to it. That tells
me quite a lot, John, about the honesty of your arguments.

Skipping over tiresome repetitions of your earlier posts, we get to your
absurd claims about what the CIA wouldn't have done. Of course, they
"wouldn't have done" a lot of things, until we learned in the 1970s and
after that they HAD done them all, and more.

Those who look into Ochsner will find the study most interesting. You,
of course, won't pursue the lead, and will continue to harangue those
who take it seriously, to your discredit and loss. C'est la vie.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Sep 23, 2002, 10:33:18 AM9/23/02
to
I'd be happy to see it published tomorrow.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Sep 23, 2002, 10:33:27 AM9/23/02
to
Joe,

That's always been their assumption. Thus, they were mightily
puzzled as to why she turned down tabloid money.
They suspect the motives of others, knowing the nature of their
own.

Martin

JLeyden900

unread,
Sep 23, 2002, 9:39:09 PM9/23/02
to
>Subject: Re: Judyth and the newsgroup
>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>Date: 09/23/2002 10:33 AM Eastern

Well, the best way to refute a lie is to publish the truth. I suggest you
get Mary Ferrell to endorse Judyth and then post it here in the NG. Oh,
wait a minute, that's how you got in this mess in the first place.
Platzman sent her that heavy handed e-mail (12/8/01) implying that M.F.
was "an old woman of deteriorating mind." He suggested she write
"something that expresses in detail how you came to know Judy and why you
believe her." What a charmer! Unfortunately, she seems to have taken it
the wrong and all those nasty, insulting follow-on e-mails from Judyth and
H.P certainly didn't help. But give it some thought. A slick guy like you
should be able to heal the breach.

BTW, I see you're still gagging on the Cancun thing. Let this be a lesson
to you.

JGL

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Sep 24, 2002, 11:36:33 AM9/24/02
to
Am I to understand that you believe you would recognize the truth if it
were posted?
Last I heard, Mary Ferrell was in poor health. Is it your recommendation
that I press her to get into the middle of this controversy?
No one at our end is "gagging on the Cancun thing." We know what
happened. You're still flailing assumptions around.
Debra saw a copy of the manuscript "enhanced" by the agent with an
assortment of errors, including the Cancun reference.
Neither Judyth nor Howard had anything to do with creating the error.
Howard copied it until he learned it was incorrect, then dropped it.
Those are the facts--I realize it's not what you want to hear.

Martin

Mark OBLAZNEY

unread,
Sep 23, 2013, 11:46:41 AM9/23/13
to
What more can be said? Oh, how the worm turns.

Glenn V.

unread,
Sep 23, 2013, 12:56:46 PM9/23/13
to
Den söndagen den 22:e september 2002 kl. 22:08:07 UTC+2 skrev howardp:

Very interesting, I hadn't seen this one from Platzman previously. In
hindsight it is particularly interesting to see what Platzman has to say
before the - first version, that is - book is published. I wonder what
Platzman has to say today after what he later experienced with Baker? My
comments below are no criticism of Platzman, merely some reflections that
may be of interest as we now know what happened after this what written by
him.
Well, we know that's not how it ended, to say the least. Mary Ferrell
stated clearly that she "wanted nothing to do with that woman ever again"
at one of those conferences.


> Martin and others we've sought advice from do not
> want to upset a woman who is ill and simply wants to be left alone. I was
> and remain the lone dissenting vote. Sorry. I look at how her self-styled
> friends used Mary to destroy Judyth and, while I have some pity for her
> (because they have dirtied her and she knows it), I do not respect her
> needs nearly as much as the primary victim does. Those who know Judyth
> know she has a huge heart and is quick to forgive. Judyth is truly the
> second patsy. There is a truly ugly story here, which has ended with Mary
> being whisked away to an "assisted living" facility, with the wagons
> circled around her after she made her position on Judyth -- and, quite
> specifically, on the newsgroup post -- abundantly clear to three persons
> other than Judyth, Martin, and me. And their testimony is only a little of
> what we've got to prove the post was a faked pastiche of old e-mails
> discussing resolved issues.
>
> 3. Judyth has variously been described as addle-brained and a brilliant
> researcher who has "inserted herself" into the tiny holes she discovered
> in Lee's life. The real Judyth is of the absent-minded professor type. She
> is, in fact, disorganized and emotional, but she is smart and quite sane.

As I'm no psychologist I couldn't state exactly what her problem is. But I
know, partly from personal experience, that something is very wrong with
Baker. Her behavior vs those she regards as "enemies" is anything but
sane. I'm far from the only one having experienced accusations from her of
the most outlandish kind.

> The suggestion that she is delusional is a slander that McAdam's is only
> to happy to publish without any evidence whatsoever -- except for the way
> her e-mails strike him (yes, they ramble) or Rose the Dime-Store-
> Psychologist's observation that Judyth "speaks fast" (I never noticed it;
> we all speak pretty fast here in the Big Apple). We have decisively
> refuted this slander by the most objective of measures. Anyone doubting
> this need only ask for a lawsuit or wait for the book.

> 4. When will the book come out? I don't know. David Lifton promised to do
> everything in his power to prevent the book from being published. He and
> his friends have fed lies to stoke preexisting fears. It is they who
> stirred Rose into contacting CBS, which was instrumental (she was, indeed,
> their instrument) in scaring them off -- but not after spending more time
> waffling on doing a story than on any other story they ever considered
> doing (this they told us amidst awkward apologies). But they did get some
> good, supportive evidence, which we were happy about, and they did find us
> important allies, who have researched aspects of her story on their own.
>
> 5. So why didn't 60 Minutes bite? I take some of the blame for pointing
> them in the direction of a key witness who denied saying what has been
> elsewhere attributabed to him. Ultimately, however, the answer should be
> obvious to anyone with their eyes open. They got scared. They blinked.

Or, they simply regarded her story a fantasy that could not be
substantiated.
This was just one - which I'm sure Platzman later discovered, of many,
many major blunders she committed.

> In the full panorama of Judyth's story, this is a mere speck. When you
> write your memoirs, you can easily mix the way you know things now with
> the way you knew it back when. What brand of gasoline did you put in your
> car 40 years ago? Esso or Exxon? What was the airport you used to fly
> out of 40 years ago? Kennedy or Ildewild? Heck, I can't even remember how
> to spell what they called it before it was renamed in the honor of our
> slain president. The fact that McAdams would use this "error" in his
> classes as a perfect "I gotcha" would be laughable if it weren't so
> appallingly simple-minded. How many "mistakes" were there in Posner's
> book, John? I am quite ready to conceed that a good number of them were
> genuine mistakes. Sometimes I have trouble reading my own notes, too.
>
> If anyone chooses to find Cancun and other such tiny matters suspicious,
> be my guest. You will have to spend 25 hours a day, 8 days a week
> disproving all the book's other statements if, that is, "researchers" like
> Lifton permit it to be published.
>
> With apologies to the majority of those who post here - those without
> personal agendas and outsized egos - the McAdams/Lifton newsgroup gets
> nothing from us unless Judyth says it's OK. She has already written a
> virtual book in response to the inanities uttered here, but mostly for the
> record. She chooses not to subject herself to mindless and/or professional
> hostility.

Not so. Later on, she decided to do her utmost to character assassinate
every single one that spoke out against her. It's ironic that those who've
met her IRL usually have very kind things to say about her. Almost as if
she's a defenseless little lady who's under massive attack from evil
doers. Nothing could be farther from the truth about this woman. Her
behavior is much like the devil in disguise.

>
> It is quite amazing: in all the time since Matt leaked his misshapen
> version of her story (further misshapen by the wolves who pounced upon
> it), no one has evidenced much interest in the heart of her story. Anyone
> really interested in Judyth's story should long ago have looked into the
> activities of Dr. Alton Ochsner. It is a measure of the superficiality of
> McAdams et al. that this key figure in Judyth's story remains an unknown
> in this group. Instead of badgering a poor woman trying to remember her
> youth as well as she can, why not do some real research? It's not been
> easy for us because none of us makes our living off the assassination, but
> we have done what we can.
>
> Howard Platzman

I wonder what Platzman says about what she did after the book was
published? That is, after she blamed him, among others, for blatant errors
in it and she disavowed it entirely? It certainly would be interesting to
know how much of the above he still stands behind as of today...


Dave Reitzes

unread,
Sep 24, 2013, 3:15:00 PM9/24/13
to
On Monday, September 23, 2013 12:56:46 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:
> Very interesting, I hadn't seen this one from Platzman previously. In
> hindsight it is particularly interesting to see what Platzman has to say
> before the - first version, that is - book is published. I wonder what
> Platzman has to say today after what he later experienced with Baker? My
> comments below are no criticism of Platzman, merely some reflections that
> may be of interest as we now know what happened after this what written by
> him.

[snipping just for brevity]

> I wonder what Platzman says about what she did after the book was
> published? That is, after she blamed him, among others, for blatant errors
> in it and she disavowed it entirely? It certainly would be interesting to
> know how much of the above he still stands behind as of today...


If Dr. Platzman entertains any doubts whatsoever about Judyth's
credibility, he has never said so publicly.

The last I recall hearing of him was a message posted on his behalf by
John Simkin:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13215


<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------

John Simkin
Super Member

admin
PipPipPipPip
15,975 posts
Posted 03 August 2008 - 02:17 AM

Message from Howard Platzman:

I just sent this report of abuse to Google:

If it is not unlawful, it is grossly unethical. John McAdams, "moderator"
of alt.assination.jfk, and friends are conducting a smear campaign against
me. They have dredged up three 12-year-old posts to another group and
asked if I had written any. When I didn't reply, they posted their
question (essentially: are you a UFO nut?) so that it now appears in
second place when my name is Googled, right after my sedate LinkedIn bio.
The damage to me is incalculably severe -- in terms of economic cost and
mental distress. I have been looking for a job and inexplicably failing
when success loomed. McAdams and his co-conspirator, principally David
Reitzes, know that today's recruiters Google names to vet job candidates.
Somehow their smear appears on a Canadian sports site. THE ONLY POSSIBLE
REASON FOR THIS IS PLACEMENT. Anyone looking to do business with me will
now have all the reason they need to pass me by -- even if I wrote NONE of
those posts, even if I am a capable and ethical candidate.

Some years ago, McAdams, whose Web site dominates the JFK issue on the
Net, accused me of bribing a witness. I am told that he has withdrawn the
accusation; he has confessed to the newsgroup that it was "inadequately
sourced." There was no apology to me. That charge was also a smear, as
McAdams claimed that money changed hands when I never met any of the two
sources he relied on. I should have gone after him then, but now he is
threatening my marriage and my family.

Strange, but his other "inadequate source" claimed that I had exhausted my
children's college fund in my efforts to defend a witness they considered
not credible. This was false. Then, at least. But that is precisely what
is happening to me -- to my children -- now.

McAdams and Reitzes have also consorted with Dutch criminals (there is no
other word) who were trying to extort a screenplay from a friend of mine
(a screenplay that did not in fact exist) by threatening to publish an
unpublished manuscript they had stolen. They fed it to McAdams/Retizes,
who then published it themselves, a clear case of intellectually property
theft, which I reported to his provost at Marquette. Soon thereafter,
another site was established and the material moved to it.

I have no time to waste trying to protect myself from this gang of
evildoers (there is no other word). My household, my family, my marriage
is at stake. All I ever did was write what I believed. But free speech is
not honored by these Google-endorsed "moderators." By asking me a question
over and over again, as McAdams just now did when my post to him appeared,
they hope to destroy me. They may well succeed.

I am told that McAdams has a high place in Google's newsgroup empire. I
hope no one's place is so high that Google would allow him to abuse his
power as he has systematically done, not only to me.

Here is #2 on the Google Howard Platzman hit list:

psychic tests Welcome back, Howard Platzman! - Forums - canasia

There is no innocent explanation for this.

Thanks for your interest. Should you care to help, go to Google and tell
them what I have told them. Do something, please.

Howard Platzman

<QUOTE OFF>----------------------------


Dave

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 24, 2013, 11:17:24 PM9/24/13
to
On 9/24/2013 3:15 PM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> On Monday, September 23, 2013 12:56:46 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:
>> Very interesting, I hadn't seen this one from Platzman previously. In
>> hindsight it is particularly interesting to see what Platzman has to say
>> before the - first version, that is - book is published. I wonder what
>> Platzman has to say today after what he later experienced with Baker? My
>> comments below are no criticism of Platzman, merely some reflections that
>> may be of interest as we now know what happened after this what written by
>> him.
>
> [snipping just for brevity]
>
>> I wonder what Platzman says about what she did after the book was
>> published? That is, after she blamed him, among others, for blatant errors
>> in it and she disavowed it entirely? It certainly would be interesting to
>> know how much of the above he still stands behind as of today...
>
>
> If Dr. Platzman entertains any doubts whatsoever about Judyth's
> credibility, he has never said so publicly.
>

How would you know?

Glenn V.

unread,
Sep 25, 2013, 3:24:51 PM9/25/13
to
Oh My! He seemed desperate..and btw; what dutch criminals might that be?
And yes, those responses from Bill Kelly indeed suggests the subject is
not a favorite one.

Glenn V.

unread,
Sep 25, 2013, 3:31:29 PM9/25/13
to
Apparently, this is now the substitute action from Baker:

http://jfkconspiracytour.weebly.com/

"Judyth Vary Baker will be making a very Rare appearance in New Orleans on
Oct 19th.

Author of Me & Lee - How I came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald
will speak at Loyola University on Oct. 19th @ 9am. $20 per person and it
includes a book!

The ORIGINAL Adult oriented , historic tour about the fun, true, quirky,
unusual, weird, strange underworld of New Orleans.

Guest Guide Judyth Vary Baker! Thurs. Oct 17th - Walk with Her!

I see a once in a lifetime autograph opportunity!!"

I'm sure her fan club members will be happy to pay $20 to meet with her.

Dave Reitzes

unread,
Sep 25, 2013, 10:45:50 PM9/25/13
to
I think he was referring to some people who had set up a conspiracy
newsgroup:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/deepsecrets

They posted some writings of Judyth's, which I reposted here. Howard says
the writings were stolen. That could be true; I don't know anything about
the people in question except I think one of them emailed me about their
newsgroup.


> And yes, those responses from Bill Kelly indeed suggests the subject is
> not a favorite one.


Bill's pretty upset. He seems to want to argue with me and John via email,
but he keeps changing the subject. Last I heard, he was ranting about
notorious "disinformation agents" like Patricia Johnson McMillan and Hugh
Aynesworth, but he assured us that he did not believe us to be agents as
well, just common Lone Nutters who want to interfere with COPA for our own
"perverted reasons." John said he was offended that he didn't make Bill's
list of agents and vowed to work harder. Bill started ranting about me and
John again at the Simkin forum.

Oh, and he assured us that COPA is very busy interviewing brand new,
never-before-heard-from witnesses to the Kennedy assassination and is
obtaining interesting results that we will NOT be able to read about on
the internet, thank you very much.

Who am I to doubt him?

Dave

Dave Reitzes

unread,
Sep 25, 2013, 10:46:15 PM9/25/13
to
Nothing says "fun, true, quirky, unusual, weird, strange underworld of New
Orleans" quite like Judyth.

Dave

Dave Reitzes

unread,
Sep 26, 2013, 3:53:23 PM9/26/13
to
On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:24:51 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:
> Oh My! He seemed desperate..

Poor Howard. I tried to help him. He emailed me seeking my help with some
new, super-secret witnesses he had to Oswald's adventures in New Orleans.
He wouldn't tell me anything about who they were; I found out later they
were Judyth and Anna Lewis.

As soon as he started talking about Ferrie, Banister, and Shaw, I tried to
tell him he was barking up the wrong tree. He insisted that I hadn't heard
the real story -- that Garrison had the right people but the wrong
conspiracy (meaning, I found out later, that they weren't conspiring to
kill Kennedy, but Castro). After asking a few questions, I was satisfied
that she didn't know what she was talking about. This just made Howard
mad, of course, because who was I to judge his witness -- she was there
and I wasn't!

When he confided the top-secret information that Alton Ochsner was part of
the plot, I basically just rolled my eyes. Howard insisted that he had
independent verification of his witnesses' allegations, because someone
had given him a recently declassified FBI report, saying that an informant
had told the FBI that Ochsner was a suspect in Garrison's investigation.
How could his witness possibly have known this newly declassified
information if she hadn't been involved with Ochsner?

I tried to explain that it was common knowledge that Ochsner had been a
suspect in Garrison's investigation, for no reason other than that he was
involved with an anti-Castro organization. (Garrison was NUTS.) Former
Garrison investigator Bill Gurvich had mentioned it to a number of people
after he dropped out of Garrison's investigation, and it had been
published in a few places (sometimes just referring to Ochsner as a
prominent New Orleans surgeon). Just because it happened to be mentioned
in a newly declassified document doesn't mean it was never reported
before. Howard didn't get it. I saw him cite that document again much
later as PROOF that Judyth had inside info on Ochsner.

To see if Judyth had mentioned any of the other New Orleans businessmen
that Garrison had considered arresting along with Ochsner, I emailed a few
of their names to Howard. The first one he didn't recognize, but after the
second or third, he seemed shocked. "You know!" he emailed back. Well, of
course I "knew" -- I'd read some of the same things his "witness" had. I
tried to explain, but he just didn't want to hear it. He was hooked.

I didn't even know at the time that his secret witness was the woman known
to the research community only as "Judith," who'd been mentioned in the
press as trying to get a book deal for her story of being Oswald's
mistress. Howard had assured me that his witness was someone totally new,
someone whose story I'd never heard before. If I'd known his witness was
"Judith," I doubt I would have bothered talking to him at all.

Later Howard claimed that I had refused to meet him to examine all his
rock-solid evidence that supported Judyth's claims. In response, I posted
the email from him in which he said that maybe someday he'd drive over to
see me (we didn't live that far away from each other) and show me his
evidence, but it was out of the question at the time -- in fact, if his
witness even knew he was corresponding with the dreaded Dave Reitzes, he'd
be in big trouble!

Poor Howard.

Dave

Glenn V.

unread,
Sep 26, 2013, 8:16:26 PM9/26/13
to
Den torsdagen den 26:e september 2013 kl. 21:53:23 UTC+2 skrev Dave Reitzes:
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:24:51 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:

Quite a story, all of this..

>
> > Oh My! He seemed desperate..
>
>
>
> Poor Howard. I tried to help him. He emailed me seeking my help with some
>
> new, super-secret witnesses he had to Oswald's adventures in New Orleans.
>
> He wouldn't tell me anything about who they were; I found out later they
>
> were Judyth and Anna Lewis.

As I recall, didn't Anna Lewis husband back down from this story of
Judyth's about the double dating?

>
>
>
> As soon as he started talking about Ferrie, Banister, and Shaw, I tried to
>
> tell him he was barking up the wrong tree. He insisted that I hadn't heard
>
> the real story -- that Garrison had the right people but the wrong
>
> conspiracy (meaning, I found out later, that they weren't conspiring to
>
> kill Kennedy, but Castro). After asking a few questions, I was satisfied
>
> that she didn't know what she was talking about. This just made Howard
>
> mad, of course, because who was I to judge his witness -- she was there
>
> and I wasn't!

That argument reminds me of someone else who posts here once in a while,
but who perhaps is in the process of reconsidering.

>
>
>
> When he confided the top-secret information that Alton Ochsner was part of
>
> the plot, I basically just rolled my eyes. Howard insisted that he had
>
> independent verification of his witnesses' allegations, because someone
>
> had given him a recently declassified FBI report, saying that an informant
>
> had told the FBI that Ochsner was a suspect in Garrison's investigation.
>
> How could his witness possibly have known this newly declassified
>
> information if she hadn't been involved with Ochsner?
>
>
>
> I tried to explain that it was common knowledge that Ochsner had been a
>
> suspect in Garrison's investigation, for no reason other than that he was
>
> involved with an anti-Castro organization. (Garrison was NUTS.) Former
>
> Garrison investigator Bill Gurvich had mentioned it to a number of people
>
> after he dropped out of Garrison's investigation, and it had been
>
> published in a few places (sometimes just referring to Ochsner as a
>
> prominent New Orleans surgeon).


JVB used this argument almost to the letter in her asylum application in
2008.


> Just because it happened to be mentioned
>
> in a newly declassified document doesn't mean it was never reported
>
> before. Howard didn't get it. I saw him cite that document again much
>
> later as PROOF that Judyth had inside info on Ochsner.
>
>
>
> To see if Judyth had mentioned any of the other New Orleans businessmen
>
> that Garrison had considered arresting along with Ochsner, I emailed a few
>
> of their names to Howard. The first one he didn't recognize, but after the
>
> second or third, he seemed shocked. "You know!" he emailed back. Well, of
>
> course I "knew" -- I'd read some of the same things his "witness" had. I
>
> tried to explain, but he just didn't want to hear it. He was hooked.

Yes, stuck in his prejudgmental dreams of producing a sensational new
witness, most probably. No arguments could have changed that, probably.

>
>
>
> I didn't even know at the time that his secret witness was the woman known
>
> to the research community only as "Judith," who'd been mentioned in the
>
> press as trying to get a book deal for her story of being Oswald's
>
> mistress. Howard had assured me that his witness was someone totally new,
>
> someone whose story I'd never heard before. If I'd known his witness was
>
> "Judith," I doubt I would have bothered talking to him at all.
>
>
>
> Later Howard claimed that I had refused to meet him to examine all his
>
> rock-solid evidence that supported Judyth's claims. In response, I posted
>
> the email from him in which he said that maybe someday he'd drive over to
>
> see me (we didn't live that far away from each other) and show me his
>
> evidence, but it was out of the question at the time -- in fact, if his
>
> witness even knew he was corresponding with the dreaded Dave Reitzes, he'd
>
> be in big trouble!

Sure, your article about JVB completely demolishes any credibility she may
have ever had. In fact, I've recently used a few of your best lines in a
debate with another Swede (Staffan Westerberg, also a member of the
infamous OIC), who published twelwe articles over here - in a rather well
respected, judicially oriented, net-magazine - where he basically went
through all conspiracy theories imaginable. I've now been invited by the
editors to respond, basically they will give me the space I deem
necessary. A bit of a surprise, of course, but the nonsense this guy
produced made me accept the invitation.

Just an example: Some CTs view the Z-film as altered, that's of course
common knowledge. But here, even Z. himself is a suspect; "Of all places
on the Plaza, why did he choose the perfect spot to shoot a film? Surely
not a coincidence.." and so forth. Zapruder (and Sitzman, btw)is described
as a highly suspicious character who likely "had foreknowledge about the
assassination". Apparently he had digged out this old suggestion once
proposed by Harrison Livingstone.

You get the idea..

>
>
>
> Poor Howard.
>
>
>
> Dave

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 26, 2013, 8:24:38 PM9/26/13
to
On 9/26/2013 3:53 PM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:24:51 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:
>> Oh My! He seemed desperate..
>
> Poor Howard. I tried to help him. He emailed me seeking my help with some
> new, super-secret witnesses he had to Oswald's adventures in New Orleans.
> He wouldn't tell me anything about who they were; I found out later they
> were Judyth and Anna Lewis.
>
> As soon as he started talking about Ferrie, Banister, and Shaw, I tried to
> tell him he was barking up the wrong tree. He insisted that I hadn't heard
> the real story -- that Garrison had the right people but the wrong
> conspiracy (meaning, I found out later, that they weren't conspiring to
> kill Kennedy, but Castro). After asking a few questions, I was satisfied
> that she didn't know what she was talking about. This just made Howard
> mad, of course, because who was I to judge his witness -- she was there
> and I wasn't!
>

When the Judyth story broke, the WC defenders instantly attacked. Standard
CIA guidelines. None of them actually did ANY research to see if part of
her story was true. They did not verify simple facts. They simply lied
about basic facts. They claimed that Cancun did not even exist in 1963 and
there were no hotels near the ruins she wanted to visit. Just jungle. They
claimed that she was just making up the story about writing to President
Kennedy. They couldn't do any simple research, It took me almost 15
minutes to find her letter at the Kennedy Library. This is called
research. Something that the WC defenders refuse to do.


> When he confided the top-secret information that Alton Ochsner was part of
> the plot, I basically just rolled my eyes. Howard insisted that he had
> independent verification of his witnesses' allegations, because someone
> had given him a recently declassified FBI report, saying that an informant
> had told the FBI that Ochsner was a suspect in Garrison's investigation.
> How could his witness possibly have known this newly declassified
> information if she hadn't been involved with Ochsner?
>
> I tried to explain that it was common knowledge that Ochsner had been a
> suspect in Garrison's investigation, for no reason other than that he was
> involved with an anti-Castro organization. (Garrison was NUTS.) Former

And Ochsner wasn't for being a supporter of the Cuban Exiles? None of have
actually investigated to see if Ochsner had any connection to David
Ferrie. Not even a WC defenders who made a career out of interviewing all
the hundreds of boys that Ferrie molested.
Maybe he thought he was communicating with David Stager.

> Poor Howard.
>
> Dave
>


Dave Reitzes

unread,
Sep 27, 2013, 10:17:27 AM9/27/13
to
When I say, "talking," let me clarify that I'm referring to email
exchanges, not actual speaking. Howard and I never met in person, and I
don't think we ever spoke on the phone. I hasten to add this because
Platzman and Martin Shackelford once seized upon some idiomatic
expressions made by another researcher to describe Howard's demeanor after
being asked a particular question on the phone (something like
"foot-shuffling, head down, eye-shifting"), to suggest that the researcher
claimed he had been speaking to Howard face-to-face and describing his
actual, physical responses. The researcher never claimed that, and the
meaning of his words was perfectly clear in their original context. But
Platzman & Shackelford tried to portray him as a liar, because he had many
damaging things to say about not only Judyth herself, but the way people
like Platzman were handling her and Anna Lewis.

Dave Reitzes

unread,
Sep 27, 2013, 10:26:31 AM9/27/13
to
On Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:16:26 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:
> Den torsdagen den 26:e september 2013 kl. 21:53:23 UTC+2 skrev Dave Reitzes:
> > On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:24:51 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:
> Quite a story, all of this..


I know, I should write a book. (No, not really.)


> > > Oh My! He seemed desperate..
> >
>
> > Poor Howard. I tried to help him. He emailed me seeking my help with some
> > new, super-secret witnesses he had to Oswald's adventures in New Orleans.
> > He wouldn't tell me anything about who they were; I found out later they
> > were Judyth and Anna Lewis.
>
>
> As I recall, didn't Anna Lewis husband back down from this story of
> Judyth's about the double dating?


David Lewis has been dead for a long time, but he told Garrison a number
of stories back around 1966-68, and none of them had anything to do with
being personal friends with Oswald, socializing with him, knowing anything
about Oswald having a girlfriend, etc. Lewis used to walk around New
Orleans with a plastic gun so people would think he was a serious private
investigator. His stories were vague things like glimpsing Oswald around
Banister's office with people like Ferrie and Sergio Arcacha (who had left
both New Orleans and the anti-Castro cause for good before Oswald arrived
in New Orleans in mid 1963). He tried to sell newsmen a tape of himself
and Jack Martin "naming names" of conspirators after the Garrison probe
was made public, but no one was willing to buy it. He claimed that some
Cubans had tried to assassinate him, failed a polygraph test about it, and
admitted that he'd made the story up to get Garrison's attention. Garrison
and his men talked to Lewis many times and took statements from him, but
Garrison never called him before the grand jury, and never even mentioned
his name in either of his two books on the JFK conspiracy.

You want to know the frightening thing, though? LIFE journalist Richard
Billings was working secretly with Garrison on an article about his
investigation (which was canceled when LIFE's editors lost confidence in
Garrison, although Billings personally never did) and kept a daily
journal. After Ferrie died, Garrison decided that he needed to make an
arrest in the case ASAP. The problem was, he only had two even remotely
viable suspects: Arcacha (suspected of involvement with Oswald, Ferrie,
and Banister) and Clay Shaw (suspected of being the "Clay Bertrand" who
supposedly tried to get a lawyer for Oswald -- but Garrison had only a
hunch about this, no evidence at all).

Garrison told Billings on February 23, 1967 -- the day after Ferrie died
-- that he had decided to "concentrate on Arcacha and Shaw and establish a
link to Oswald and Ferrie." He promised Billings there would be an arrest
within a week or two.

http://www.jfk-online.com/billings3.html

The very next day, Perry Raymond Russo came forward to the press to talk
about allegations that he had heard David Ferrie discuss JFK's
assassination. On the day after that, Russo was interviewed by Garrison
assistant Andrew "Moo Moo" Sciambra for the first time, said a photo of
Oswald vaguely resembled a guy who used to be David Ferrie's roommate, and
said he recognized a photo of Clay Shaw as a guy he'd seen twice, once at
a JFK speech and once with David Ferrie. Within a few days, he was
Garrison's star witness against Clay Shaw, and Clay Shaw was placed under
arrest on March 1st.

If it had not been for Perry Russo, Garrison may well have decided his
best bet was to go after Sergio Arcacha, and his star witness would have
been none other than David Lewis.


> > As soon as he started talking about Ferrie, Banister, and Shaw, I tried to
> > tell him he was barking up the wrong tree. He insisted that I hadn't heard
> > the real story -- that Garrison had the right people but the wrong
> > conspiracy (meaning, I found out later, that they weren't conspiring to
> > kill Kennedy, but Castro). After asking a few questions, I was satisfied
> > that she didn't know what she was talking about. This just made Howard
> > mad, of course, because who was I to judge his witness -- she was there
> > and I wasn't!
>
>
> That argument reminds me of someone else who posts here once in a while,
> but who perhaps is in the process of reconsidering.


Bill Kelly once tried to use that logic on me when I dismissed some of
Jean Hill's fairy tales. Jean Hill was an eyewitness, Dave! You weren't
there! She WAS!

There are different ways to respond to such arguments, of course. I could
have pointed out that the issue is hardly whether she was an eyewitness;
the issue is whether she had any credibility about contradictory and often
wholly unverified claims she made.

But in this case, I had to ask Bill (and I'm paraphrasing), "WHERE was
she, Bill? Was she watching a grassy knoll gunman fire at the President,
as she started claiming in the 1980s? No, she wasn't. She told reporters
on 11-22-63, including in at least one filmed interview, that she hadn't
seen anyone fire a weapon; she only HEARD the shots. Was she running
across Elm Street, fearlessly dodging cars and motorcycles in the
motorcade to get across the street and chase the suspicious character she
said looked like Jack Ruby? No, she wasn't. She was captured in many
photographs, rooted in place on the south side of Elm, until well after
the entire motorcade was gone. Was she forcibly taken from Dealey Plaza
into a room where a sinister man interrogated her and tried to make her
change her story? No, she wasn't. She was taken to the nearby press room
with a bunch of other eyewitnesses, where she was interviewed many times
by various reporters, and Jim Featherston of the Dallas Times-Herald (she
called him "Featherstone" in her WC testimony) tried to get her to tone
down some of the embellishments he heard her adding to her story the more
she repeated it." See:

http://www.jfk-online.com/featherston.html

Of course, in some cases -- as with, say, Gordon Arnold or Beverly Oliver
-- whether the so-called witnesses were there at all is part of the
question. But the issue is generally how credible are the witnesses, and
is there any evidence that corroborates or falsifies what they say --
preferably verifiable forensic evidence?


> > When he confided the top-secret information that Alton Ochsner was part of
> > the plot, I basically just rolled my eyes. Howard insisted that he had
> > independent verification of his witnesses' allegations, because someone
> > had given him a recently declassified FBI report, saying that an informant
> > had told the FBI that Ochsner was a suspect in Garrison's investigation.
> > How could his witness possibly have known this newly declassified
> > information if she hadn't been involved with Ochsner?
>
> > I tried to explain that it was common knowledge that Ochsner had been a
> > suspect in Garrison's investigation, for no reason other than that he was
> > involved with an anti-Castro organization. (Garrison was NUTS.) Former
> > Garrison investigator Bill Gurvich had mentioned it to a number of people
> > after he dropped out of Garrison's investigation, and it had been
> > published in a few places (sometimes just referring to Ochsner as a
> > prominent New Orleans surgeon).


> JVB used this argument almost to the letter in her asylum application in
> 2008.


That doesn't surprise me. I think it's in her books as well.


> > Just because it happened to be mentioned
> > in a newly declassified document doesn't mean it was never reported
> > before. Howard didn't get it. I saw him cite that document again much
> > later as PROOF that Judyth had inside info on Ochsner.
> >
> > To see if Judyth had mentioned any of the other New Orleans businessmen
> > that Garrison had considered arresting along with Ochsner, I emailed a few
> > of their names to Howard. The first one he didn't recognize, but after the
> > second or third, he seemed shocked. "You know!" he emailed back. Well, of
> > course I "knew" -- I'd read some of the same things his "witness" had. I
> > tried to explain, but he just didn't want to hear it. He was hooked.
>
>
> Yes, stuck in his prejudgmental dreams of producing a sensational new
> witness, most probably. No arguments could have changed that, probably.


Of course not. He's never disavowed her.
He worked in the Dal-Tex Building, right alongside Dealey Plaza. He walked
around to find the best view of the motorcade in that area, and he chose
the pedestal because it gave him the best vantage point to film. It says
so in his WC testimony. If people want to disbelieve him, they have every
right, but to jump to conclusions instead of conducting research is
indefensible.


Zapruder (and Sitzman, btw)is described
> as a highly suspicious character who likely "had foreknowledge about the
> assassination". Apparently he had digged out this old suggestion once
> proposed by Harrison Livingstone.


Right. The other alterationists like Jack White said the same thing.


> You get the idea..


If I can be of any help to you, let me know.

There will be a lot of garbage being spouted about this subject over the
next two months, and a lot of people in the media are going to be pretty
clueless about it. I always try to help anyone out with legitimate
research issues, and I'm sure many other serious researchers at this forum
would, too.

Dave

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 27, 2013, 8:05:45 PM9/27/13
to
You're simply not trying had enough with your straw man arguments. If you
did a little more dilligent digging you'd find some kook who claims the
Zapruder was the grassy knoll shooter with a gun concealed in his camera
with no film.

black...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2013, 9:37:47 PM9/27/13
to
On Friday, September 27, 2013 10:26:31 AM UTC-4, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> Lewis used to walk around New
>
> Orleans with a plastic gun so people would think he was a serious private
> investigator. His stories were vague things like glimpsing Oswald around
>
> Banister's office with people like Ferrie and Sergio Arcacha (who had left
> both New Orleans and the anti-Castro cause for good before Oswald arrived
> in New Orleans in mid 1963).

This is a point which has been lost in the literature over the years,
especially by a small die-hard group of writers: Ferrie, Arcacha and
Banister were ALL effectively out of the anti-Castro movement by late
1961, early 1962 at the latest, nearly a year and a half before Oswald
even returned to New Orleans in the fabled "summer of '63."

black...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 28, 2013, 10:30:01 AM9/28/13
to
Also: Neither Ferrie, Arcacha, Banister (nor Shaw) were in any way
associated with the fabled "anti-Castro training camp north of Lake
Ponchartrain in the summer of '63," which was actually two separate
endeavors, neither of which was really a training camp.


Pamela Brown

unread,
Sep 28, 2013, 1:38:13 PM9/28/13
to
I sat next to Mary Ferrell at the luncheon in her honor at NID in 2002.
I was not involved with Judyth at the time. I was granted the honor of
sitting next to Mary F because I also played a movement of a Bach flute
sonata at that event. The conversation at Mary's end of the table turned
to Judyth Baker.

"WE WILL NOT TALK ABOUT THAT WOMAN" Mary said, in a voice that would
command the attention of even a drill sargeant.

Enough said.

Pamela


Pamela Brown

unread,
Sep 28, 2013, 1:39:07 PM9/28/13
to
It is as though Ed Haslam created a parallel universe and Judyth walked
right into it.

Pamela
findingjudyth.blogspot.com

Pamela Brown

unread,
Sep 28, 2013, 1:39:45 PM9/28/13
to
With all due respect, BB, where is your book on Ferrie?

Pamela
findingjudyth.blogspot.com

Pamela Brown

unread,
Sep 28, 2013, 1:55:06 PM9/28/13
to
On Friday, September 27, 2013 9:26:31 AM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> On Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:16:26 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:
>
> > Den torsdagen den 26:e september 2013 kl. 21:53:23 UTC+2 skrev Dave Reitzes:
>
> > > On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:24:51 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:
>
> > Quite a story, all of this..
>
>
>
>
>
> I know, I should write a book. (No, not really.)

Why not?

Pamela
findingjudyth.blogspot.com

Mark OBLAZNEY

unread,
Sep 28, 2013, 7:43:03 PM9/28/13
to
On Sunday, September 22, 2002 10:08:07 PM UTC+2, howardp wrote:
> the genuine article. Martin and others we've sought advice from do not
> want to upset a woman who is ill and simply wants to be left alone. I was
> and remain the lone dissenting vote. Sorry. I look at how her self-styled
> friends used Mary to destroy Judyth and, while I have some pity for her
> (because they have dirtied her and she knows it), I do not respect her
> needs nearly as much as the primary victim does. Those who know Judyth
> know she has a huge heart and is quick to forgive. Judyth is truly the
> second patsy. There is a truly ugly story here, which has ended with Mary
> being whisked away to an "assisted living" facility, with the wagons
> circled around her after she made her position on Judyth -- and, quite
> specifically, on the newsgroup post -- abundantly clear to three persons
> other than Judyth, Martin, and me. And their testimony is only a little of
> what we've got to prove the post was a faked pastiche of old e-mails
> discussing resolved issues.
>
> 3. Judyth has variously been described as addle-brained and a brilliant
> researcher who has "inserted herself" into the tiny holes she discovered
> in Lee's life. The real Judyth is of the absent-minded professor type. She
> is, in fact, disorganized and emotional, but she is smart and quite sane.
> The suggestion that she is delusional is a slander that McAdam's is only
> to happy to publish without any evidence whatsoever -- except for the way
> her e-mails strike him (yes, they ramble) or Rose the Dime-Store-
> Psychologist's observation that Judyth "speaks fast" (I never noticed it;
> we all speak pretty fast here in the Big Apple). We have decisively
> refuted this slander by the most objective of measures. Anyone doubting
> this need only ask for a lawsuit or wait for the book.
>
> 4. When will the book come out? I don't know. David Lifton promised to do
> everything in his power to prevent the book from being published. He and
> his friends have fed lies to stoke preexisting fears. It is they who
> stirred Rose into contacting CBS, which was instrumental (she was, indeed,
> their instrument) in scaring them off -- but not after spending more time
> waffling on doing a story than on any other story they ever considered
> doing (this they told us amidst awkward apologies). But they did get some
> good, supportive evidence, which we were happy about, and they did find us
> important allies, who have researched aspects of her story on their own.
>
> 5. So why didn't 60 Minutes bite? I take some of the blame for pointing
> them in the direction of a key witness who denied saying what has been
> elsewhere attributabed to him. Ultimately, however, the answer should be
> obvious to anyone with their eyes open. They got scared. They blinked.
> In the full panorama of Judyth's story, this is a mere speck. When you
> write your memoirs, you can easily mix the way you know things now with
> the way you knew it back when. What brand of gasoline did you put in your
> car 40 years ago? Esso or Exxon? What was the airport you used to fly
> out of 40 years ago? Kennedy or Ildewild? Heck, I can't even remember how
> to spell what they called it before it was renamed in the honor of our
> slain president. The fact that McAdams would use this "error" in his
> classes as a perfect "I gotcha" would be laughable if it weren't so
> appallingly simple-minded. How many "mistakes" were there in Posner's
> book, John? I am quite ready to conceed that a good number of them were
> genuine mistakes. Sometimes I have trouble reading my own notes, too.
>
> If anyone chooses to find Cancun and other such tiny matters suspicious,
> be my guest. You will have to spend 25 hours a day, 8 days a week
> disproving all the book's other statements if, that is, "researchers" like
> Lifton permit it to be published.
>
> With apologies to the majority of those who post here - those without
> personal agendas and outsized egos - the McAdams/Lifton newsgroup gets
> nothing from us unless Judyth says it's OK. She has already written a
> virtual book in response to the inanities uttered here, but mostly for the
> record. She chooses not to subject herself to mindless and/or professional
> hostility.
>
> It is quite amazing: in all the time since Matt leaked his misshapen
> version of her story (further misshapen by the wolves who pounced upon
> it), no one has evidenced much interest in the heart of her story. Anyone
> really interested in Judyth's story should long ago have looked into the
> activities of Dr. Alton Ochsner. It is a measure of the superficiality of
> McAdams et al. that this key figure in Judyth's story remains an unknown
> in this group. Instead of badgering a poor woman trying to remember her
> youth as well as she can, why not do some real research? It's not been
> easy for us because none of us makes our living off the assassination, but
> we have done what we can.
>
> Howard Platzman

Judy just laid some big eggs in her henhouse. Her and Ralph need to go on
the road together.

black...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 28, 2013, 7:45:11 PM9/28/13
to
On Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:24:38 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> And Ochsner wasn't for being a supporter of the Cuban Exiles? None of have
>
> actually investigated to see if Ochsner had any connection to David
>
> Ferrie. Not even a WC defenders who made a career out of interviewing all
>
> the hundreds of boys that Ferrie molested.

I've done more research on Ferrie and New Orleans than you have, including
Ochsner. How dare you constantly insult me.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 29, 2013, 7:56:04 PM9/29/13
to
But you're falling into their trap. The area was always known as Cancun.
They are obsessed about the resort which did not exist then. But it wasn't
the resort that Judyth wanted to visit, but the ruins that had been there
thousands of years.

Dave Reitzes

unread,
Sep 29, 2013, 11:14:59 PM9/29/13
to
On Saturday, September 28, 2013 1:39:07 PM UTC-4, Pamela Brown wrote:
> It is as though Ed Haslam created a parallel universe and Judyth walked
> right into it.
>
> Pamela
>
> findingjudyth.blogspot.com


That's not a bad description at all, but I would hasten to add my view
that in similar fashion, Jim Garrison had earlier created a parallel
universe, which Ed Haslam walked right into. (And Haslam was far from the
only one. There are many copycats who came out of the woodwork with
information designed to fit into Garrison's theories. Richard Case Nagell
is one of the most famous examples.)

Without Garrison, there could have been no Haslam story; without Haslam,
there could have been no Judyth story.

Dave

http://www.jfk-online.com/garrison.html

Dave Reitzes

unread,
Sep 29, 2013, 11:33:06 PM9/29/13
to
Quite a few of us are looking forward to his book, whenever it's finally
ready. I have no doubt it will be worth the wait.

Dave

Message has been deleted

Pamela Brown

unread,
Sep 30, 2013, 9:32:53 PM9/30/13
to
Agreed. With Judyth's DF book coming out, it seems the sooner the better,
as she will push her side without the possibility of at least a good
balance. I know that BB has a good network that can make this happen. I
know McAdams took an interest in the book too, and it would be awesome if
he could find BB a 'good' publisher (his term).

I also hope that BB will take the position (which is true, just have not
seen him understand the significance of it) that he has searched up and
down, high and low, for any of these people who are documented to have had
a connection to DF to show indications of having had any knowledge of
Judyth in 1963, without success. And that he is still looking...(that
will deflect any heat from the Judyth camp...)

Pamela
findingjudyth.blogspot.com

black...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 30, 2013, 10:54:43 PM9/30/13
to
On Monday, September 30, 2013 9:32:53 PM UTC-4, Pamela Brown wrote:
> I also hope that BB will take the position (which is true, just have not
>
> seen him understand the significance of it) that he has searched up and
>
> down, high and low, for any of these people who are documented to have had
>
> a connection to DF to show indications of having had any knowledge of
>
> Judyth in 1963, without success. And that he is still looking...(that
>
> will deflect any heat from the Judyth camp...)

Perhaps I have not emphasized that enough: Many of the people I interview
knew Ferrie in 1963, and some had unusual access to his place. I ask them
if they knew Baker 1) by description; 2) by name; 3) by photo. I have not
yet found anyone who recalls her at all.

Further, Baker has not provided any verifiable evidence that she ever knew
Ferrie. She points to evidence whose authenticity can be questioned (such
as the lecture notes), or little details or quotations whose authenticity
can never be verified.

Additionally, she has him engaged in activities, in which he was most
likely not involved (like the training camp allegation).

It is very hard to have any confidence in the story.

Pamela Brown

unread,
Oct 1, 2013, 8:15:23 AM10/1/13
to
On Monday, September 30, 2013 9:54:43 PM UTC-5, black...@aol.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 30, 2013 9:32:53 PM UTC-4, Pamela Brown wrote:
>
> > I also hope that BB will take the position (which is true, just have not
>
> >
>
> > seen him understand the significance of it) that he has searched up and
>
> >
>
> > down, high and low, for any of these people who are documented to have had
>
> >
>
> > a connection to DF to show indications of having had any knowledge of
>
> >
>
> > Judyth in 1963, without success. And that he is still looking...(that
>
> >
>
> > will deflect any heat from the Judyth camp...)
>
>
>
> Perhaps I have not emphasized that enough: Many of the people I interview
>
> knew Ferrie in 1963, and some had unusual access to his place. I ask them
>
> if they knew Baker 1) by description; 2) by name; 3) by photo. I have not
>
> yet found anyone who recalls her at all.
>

Exactly. You have researched exhaustively, left no stone unturned. This
is a very strong position that allows others to just reflect on your
research and not stumble. I don't think even Judyth can find a rebuttal
to that position.

>
>
> Further, Baker has not provided any verifiable evidence that she ever knew
>
> Ferrie. She points to evidence whose authenticity can be questioned (such
>
> as the lecture notes), or little details or quotations whose authenticity
>
> can never be verified.

Agreed. Judyth's use of documentation is confusing to many people. She
has no primary evidence connecting her to DF. No photo, letter,
interview, document. She does say that she has circumstantial
documentation that by inference show that she knew Ferrie. Some of it is
quite curious and interesting. It's not impossible that she met DF, but
she doesn't know how to make a case for it, if she did, from what I have
seen so far. She tends to confuse primary and circumstantial
documentation, or just ignore the difference in order to 'make her case'.
There is no point in arguing with her about it, she just gets huffy and
adds 'new information'. That is a sort of bluff. By taking wise
positions with coherent logic, you can counter anything she comes up with
in a persuasive manner.

>
>
>
> Additionally, she has him engaged in activities, in which he was most
>
> likely not involved (like the training camp allegation).
>
Judyth needs objective documentation to ground each segment of her story. Otherwise, it remains at the level of speculation.
>
>
> It is very hard to have any confidence in the story.

Judyth is placing herself as a witness. That is a high bar. If she
doesn't have objective documentation, or some sort of corroboration, her
statements are speculative. Haslam has looked all over for connections to
Judyth; he seems to find things in the shadows, but they are just that.
And MF+TMV, as much as I appreciate that book, and have since it first was
published, is also speculative.

Pamela
findingjudyth.blogspot.com

Pamela Brown

unread,
Oct 1, 2013, 8:39:40 PM10/1/13
to
On Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:14:59 PM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> On Saturday, September 28, 2013 1:39:07 PM UTC-4, Pamela Brown wrote:
>
> > It is as though Ed Haslam created a parallel universe and Judyth walked
>
> > right into it.
>
> >
>
> > Pamela
>
> >
>
> > findingjudyth.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
>
> That's not a bad description at all, but I would hasten to add my view
>
> that in similar fashion, Jim Garrison had earlier created a parallel
>
> universe, which Ed Haslam walked right into.

Interesting observation, Dave. Why do you think that?

>(And Haslam was far from the
>
> only one. There are many copycats who came out of the woodwork with
>
> information designed to fit into Garrison's theories. Richard Case Nagell
>
> is one of the most famous examples.)
>
>
>
> Without Garrison, there could have been no Haslam story; without Haslam,
>
> there could have been no Judyth story.
>

Are you saying you think Judyth just made up the bioweapon story after
reading Haslam?

We have Judyth's sister Debbee's word that JVB told her about having an
affair with LHO early-on (but not, I don't think, before the
assassination). Do we have any record of when Judyth first told someone
about the bioweapon plot?

>
> Dave
>
>
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/garrison.html


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 1, 2013, 9:44:02 PM10/1/13
to
On 10/1/2013 8:15 AM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Monday, September 30, 2013 9:54:43 PM UTC-5, black...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Monday, September 30, 2013 9:32:53 PM UTC-4, Pamela Brown wrote:
>>
>>> I also hope that BB will take the position (which is true, just have not
>>
>>>
>>
>>> seen him understand the significance of it) that he has searched up and
>>
>>>
>>
>>> down, high and low, for any of these people who are documented to have had
>>
>>>
>>
>>> a connection to DF to show indications of having had any knowledge of
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Judyth in 1963, without success. And that he is still looking...(that
>>
>>>
>>
>>> will deflect any heat from the Judyth camp...)
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps I have not emphasized that enough: Many of the people I interview
>>
>> knew Ferrie in 1963, and some had unusual access to his place. I ask them
>>
>> if they knew Baker 1) by description; 2) by name; 3) by photo. I have not
>>
>> yet found anyone who recalls her at all.
>>
>
> Exactly. You have researched exhaustively, left no stone unturned. This
> is a very strong position that allows others to just reflect on your
> research and not stumble. I don't think even Judyth can find a rebuttal
> to that position.
>
>>
>>
>> Further, Baker has not provided any verifiable evidence that she ever knew
>>
>> Ferrie. She points to evidence whose authenticity can be questioned (such
>>
>> as the lecture notes), or little details or quotations whose authenticity
>>
>> can never be verified.
>
> Agreed. Judyth's use of documentation is confusing to many people. She
> has no primary evidence connecting her to DF. No photo, letter,
> interview, document. She does say that she has circumstantial

You could say the same thing about ANY conspiracy. Show me a photo of
the CIA plotters meeting. Show me the minutes of their meetings.

Dave Reitzes

unread,
Oct 2, 2013, 10:28:54 AM10/2/13
to
On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 8:39:40 PM UTC-4, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:14:59 PM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 28, 2013 1:39:07 PM UTC-4, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > > It is as though Ed Haslam created a parallel universe and Judyth walked
> > > right into it.
>
> > That's not a bad description at all, but I would hasten to add my view
> > that in similar fashion, Jim Garrison had earlier created a parallel
> > universe, which Ed Haslam walked right into.
>
>
> Interesting observation, Dave. Why do you think that?


It was Garrison who first suggested that Mary Sherman's death was related
to the Kennedy assassination in some way. This was not based on any
evidence, however, but simply speculation. This was fairly early in the
DA's probe, and he was pursuing the idea that homosexuality and sadism
were important components of his suspects' motivation in killing Kennedy.
(Garrison defenders like Jim DiEugenio commonly insist that Big Jim never
said any such thing, and that notorious "disinformation agents" like Jim
Phelan and Hugh Aynesworth made this story up to discredit Garrison.
Actually, Big Jim told a number of journalists that he thought the
assassination was a homosexual thrill-killing, including not only Phelan
and Aynesworth, but also Richard Billings, Art Kevin, Nicholas Chriss, and
Lawrence Schiller. Perry Russo also confirmed it.)

What interested Garrison in Mary Sherman was that her violent murder was
unsolved, and she was reputed to be gay. He speculated that the murder may
have been some kind of sex crime, and suggested that Sherman might have
known Ferrie and Shaw. He was interested in tying Ferrie and/or Shaw to
the murder, as well as to the 1962 death of an allegedly gay teenager who
(reportedly) had lived four blocks away from Ferrie's friend Layton
Martens. Of course, nothing ever came of any of this. Sources for all this
are cited in this article of mine:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon5.htm

Garrison mentioned Sherman briefly in his PLAYBOY interview, referring to
her as an associate of Ferrie's, and implying that the two may have been
involved in some kind of cancer research together. I think Blackburst can
attest that there is no evidence of a Ferrie/Sherman connection, and that
the allegations about Ferrie's cancer research are quite distorted (both
in terms of what sort of research may have actually been involved, IIRC,
and when it supposedly took place -- the story about Ferrie keeping mice
in his apartment, for example, dates from years before Garrison claimed it
occurred). But the Ferrie/Sherman association and supposed cancer research
lab is fundamental to Ed Haslam's story, and Haslam got it from Garrison,
who (as far as I can tell) got it from sheer speculation.

Now, my research convinced me long ago that other key components of
Garrison's case were equally spurious: Oswald's alleged connections with
Shaw, Banister, Ferrie (except for a brief association in the CAP in
1955), anti-Castro Cubans, etc. But you needn't agree with me about any of
that to understand how crucial the Ferrie/Sherman link is for Haslam, and
how it originated in suppositions made by Garrison. Haslam appeared
briefly at this newsgroup around the time his first book came out, and
could cite no evidence for the Ferrie/Sherman connection other than Jim
Garrison's statements.


> >(And Haslam was far from the
> > only one. There are many copycats who came out of the woodwork with
> > information designed to fit into Garrison's theories. Richard Case Nagell
> > is one of the most famous examples.)
>
> > Without Garrison, there could have been no Haslam story; without Haslam,
> > there could have been no Judyth story.
>
>
> Are you saying you think Judyth just made up the bioweapon story after
> reading Haslam?


I can't state with any certainty when she started developing her story, or
even that she read Haslam's book before doing so, but I remember quite
well that in the late 1990s, you couldn't do a web search on Ferrie
without running into numerous mentions of Haslam's claims.


> We have Judyth's sister Debbee's word that JVB told her about having an
> affair with LHO early-on (but not, I don't think, before the
> assassination).


In one of J's emails to me (10/7/2000), she wrote that she told her sister
(Lynda) some of the details about Oswald in 1965. In a group email of
11/24/2000, she said she told her sister about Lee in November 1964, and
this is confirmed (sort of) in a forwarded email purportedly written by
Lynda:


<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------

Subj: Question to Martin. ALSO: resending information to all of you Happy
Holidays!
Date: 11/24/00 1:08:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: Blackburst, re...@louisiana.edu
To: msh...@concentric.net, […]
CC: […], […]
CC: […],[…]
CC: […],[…]
CC: […], Howpl, […]
CC: […],[…]
CC: […],[…],[…]
CC: […], Dreitzes, […]
CC: […],[…]

TO ALL:

MY SISTER, LYNDA, SENT AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO MANY OF YOU, ABOUT MY
TELLING HER ABOUT LEE, IN NOV. 1964.
THE CONFESSION MADE TO LYNDA WAS BECAUSE OF GREAT GRIEF AS MANY OF YOU
KNOW, I HAD A MEMORY BLANK-OUT THE DAY I SAW LEE SHOT, THAT LASTED FOR
HOURS. IT'S THE ONLY TIME IN MY LIFE THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED---BUT IT SEEMS
MY MIND TRIED TO ALSO BLOCK OUT DETAILS OF WHAT I THINK WERE TWO
CONFESSIONS MADE TO MY ONLY SIBLING, ONE IN NOVEMBER, AND ALMOST THE SAME
THING AGAIN IWHEN OUR GRANDFATHER DIED, IN 1965.

MARTIN, WHO HAS HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH HOW FAMILY MEMBERS
CONFIDE IN EACH OTHER, IN TIMES OF TRAUMA, AND HOW CONFESSIONS/GRIEF MIGHT
BE HANDLED, MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHY I COULDN'T REMEMBER THE BURIAL
DETAIL AS EVER HAVING BEEN BROUGHT UP IN THAT CONVERSATION, AND WHY LYNDA
REMEMBERS THIS AS JUST ONE CONVERSATION. (?)

HOPE HE CAN, ANYWAY.

-J-

THE ORIGINAL EMAIL BELOW INCLUDES LYNDA'S EMAIL, AND ALSO A GRADE SCHOOL
EVENT, WHICH IS ABOUT MY FIRST IMPORTANT ENCOUNTER WITH ETHICS-- AND THE
KIND OF PERSON I TRY TO BE (NOT ALWAYS SUCCESSFUL). FEELING PRETTY ANGRY
THAT MR. LIFTON CALLS ME UNETHICAL AND THAT DEBRA CONWAY HAS IMPLIED THAT
I LIED ---ABOUT A HOTEL RESERVATION!


ADDITIONS ARE ===SET APART LIKE THIS===.

TEXT SENT PREVIOUSLY:

Dear Howard and everyone,

to my very great surprise, at almost exactly midnight tonight my sister
called and told me she loved me, and as we talked, she made it clear that
she was going to write the account of what i told her sometimes between
Nov. 22 and Nov. 24, 1964, when Lynda was living with me and Robert in
Gainesville, Florida.

I had been crying, actually, because of the anniversary of the event.

==================would like to
amend this to add that some of what Lynda reports below she may not have
heard in November--though am sure I blurted out many of these things at
that time. ----was so upset--- Probably Lynda got the rest of what she
wrote here when our grandfather died in 1965. This would account for why
I did not remember A DETAIL ABOUT BURIAL in November...that probably came
up about the time Grandpa Whiting died, and burial was on my
mind.....=====
=====
============================================================

I do not remember telling Lynda that I wanted to be buried next to Lee,
but otherwise, everything she said here i remember. I never brought it up
to her all these years and indeed I had pushed the sad memory aside,
though when she began to relate over the phone our conversation, it all
came flooding back.

What Lynda didn't know is the intense guilt and shame I felt, because I
was trying to set a good example, and I was supposed to be trying to find
a cure for cancer, and here Lynda could see i had stopped all of that, and
she was confused. I think I began telling her what happened, and why I
had to leave the field of medicine, giving some lame excuse, when I
couldn;t take it anymore and can;t lie very well anyway, and so she heard
the truth.

Lynda hates to write, and it is the first time I have received an email
of any length from her: she had to ask her husband, Tony, how to make the
email system work! So i am very grateful for this birthday present, my
dear sister's testimony.
My mother and sister know me very well and know I wouldn;t lie.


=======AN ENCOUNTER WITH AN ETHICAL PROBLEM --- IN FIFTH
GRADE-- THAT MY FAMILY MEMBERS KNOW ABOUT =========

Once when I was in grade school in a Parochial school called st. mary's,
I came to class and saw a candy bar on each desk "What is this about,
Sister Mary Anton?" I asked the nun.

"This is a reward for joining the Sodality of Don Bosco," she answered.
"We're all going to a meeting in the next room in just a few minutes. I
hope you enjoy the candy bar."
"No, Sister," i answered, "I can;t take that."

"What do you mean?" the good nun replied. "Everybody is getting a candy
bar today."

"But it's a reward for joining the Sodality," I said. "You didn;t ask
me first. You put the candy bar out there first."

She looked red in the face. "Are you saying that I bribed you, young
lady?" she demanded.
"Yes," i whispered very low. "And so I am not going to the meeting."

As the other kids went to the meeting, I was the only one without a
candy bar and the only one left in the classroom, where I sat feeling very
conspicuous. Also, i had been given math problems to do--and at lunch, I
was forbidden to go out and play with the other kids. I was the only
student in the whole school who did not join the Sodality: even a couple
of Protestant kids attending joined the "club."

But when my parents announced we were moving to Florida, Sister Mary
Anton bent down to me, and took off a beautiful silver medal she kept
always with her, that had Mary on it, and she gave it to me.

"You earned this medal that day," she whispered into my ear. "And go
with my blessings into your wonderful future!"

Needless to say, i never forgot what Sister Mary Anton, who in the
beginning was so strict and did not like me at all, but who at the end of
that school year hugged me goodbye with tears running down her cheeks.

And Lynda and Mama and my closest friends know this, that I can
exagerrate and forget, and even embroider, but never purposely, and i am
dead serious and sincere about telling the truth to the best of my
ability, no matter what the consequences, when the chips are down.

Thank you for listening.
j

================LYNDA WRITES ABOUT
JUDYTH'S CONFESSION TO HER ABOUT LEE OSWALD : END OF NOV. 1964/PROBABLY
MORE IN SPRING, 1965============

> Subj: memories
> Date: 05/16/2000 1:29:29 AM Central Daylight Time
> From: bau...@worldnet.att.net (Anthony Bauer)
> To: elect...@aol.com (Judyth V. Baker)
>
> Dear Judy,
> I am sorry for not writing you sooner, but with my new job and school, it
> has been quite hectic. I don't need to tell you about hectic because I think
> you wrote the book on that already. Speaking of books, I told you I would
> write to you about what we shared in conversations many years ago...I believe
> in the fall of 1964 when I lived with you and Bob in Flavette at U of F. I
> remember on one particular evening, we were reminiscing about our past and
> what we hoped would be in our future lives, and that was the night when our
> conversation turned to even more serious talk about you.
I remember we stayed
> up very late, and you were quite concerned about whether or not you should
> tell me something so serious in nature that you weren't sure if we should
> continue our discussion. But, you know me, I egged you on to tell me what was
> so important that you couldn't share it with me. I remember you told me that
> if I wanted to know what you were keeping to yourself, I had to swear to
> secrecy and never tell anyone about this. You said if anything ever happened
> to you....such as an early or premature death, then I should tell anyone that
> would listen about what you were about to tell me. I swore to you I would
> keep your secret, and up until this day I have done that. Now, because of the
> writing of your book, and with your permission, I will repeat what you told
> me so many years ago.
You told me you were afraid for my well-being, but felt
> I needed to know what had transpired in your life at that time. Here goes.....
> You told me that you had a love affair with a man who was trying to help our
> country and he was involved in very secret and covert activities for our
> country. You said you met him when Bobby left you all alone after you were
> married and you fell in love with each other. You told me if anything ever
> happened to you, I was to look for a green glass that he had given you as
> proof of what you were telling me. You said that my life might be in danger
> if I ever mentioned this to anyone and made me promise that I would never
> speak of this conversation again unless something happened to you. I was full
> of questions, and you were very hesistant to give me many details, other than
> you and he had shared a common interest in saving our country and the
> President, and that you were both very much in love. You said you wanted to
> be buried next to him some day, and someday you would tell me the whole story
> about the two of you.
You said you worked closely together and had some
> close friends who were also working with you. You said the friends were also
> in danger and you wouldn't tell me much more. You said someday I would know
> everything, but it would mean you probably would not be alive if that
> knowledge came to me. I remember I was frightened for you and didn't
> understand what it was all about, but I also knew you were in pain and
> hurting over this man you loved so much. You reminded me about the green
> glass several more times during our conversation that night, and wanted me
> not to think badly of you for being in love with another man when you were
> already married to Bobby. I told you I would never judge you, Judy, and I
> never have. I have kept this secret all these years, including how you and he
> had loved each other so much and how you wanted to be buried next to him when
> you die. I now know why you wanted to protect me and not tell me the details
> of you and Lee...and I also know why you feared for your life for all of
> these years and wanted to protect me and your children from any danger.
I know
> what you told me was the truth back then, and I still remember the fear and
> at the same time the love in your voice when you told me this information. I
> hope peaple will believe you and me as well, because I swear what I have just
> written is true. I love you honey, with all of my heart. Your sister, Lynda.

<QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------


Assuming that the above email did indeed originate with her sister (I say
this because Judyth has a history of forging emails from people supposedly
supporting her story), I have doubts about how reliable a witness Lynda
is. Judyth has quoted Lynda as being a witness to Judyth's phone calls
being altered in real time by The Conspiracy, for example.


Do we have any record of when Judyth first told someone
> about the bioweapon plot?


It's been a while since I've gone through the Judyth material I have, so
offhand I don't recall what she's said about this. I don't recall her
saying that she told anyone about the bioweapon plot prior to the time she
began writing up her story in the late 1990s, but it's possible I'm
forgetting something.

Dave

Pamela Brown

unread,
Oct 2, 2013, 11:22:46 AM10/2/13
to
That is a good point.

When someone from an intelligence agency comes forward to make claims
about secret things that are going on, they may not have objective
verification. It may have been redacted from their book, or just not
available to them.

They might, however, have had already established their credentials, or
bona fides, so to speak, from the fact of their connection to the agency.
They could be lying, they could be mistaken, but we do know they were
involved in an intelligence group. One example of this is the Nebtrenko
book on LHO in MC.

Not exactly the case with Judyth. If she seems to want to posit a hidden
network of intelligence gathering research to develop a bioweapon, an
underworld of spies at Reily Coffee and throughout NOLA which she alone is
talking about, resulting in the murder of the doctor involved, it would
seem ideally that each area has to be grounded with some sort of evidence
that stands up to scrutiny, or else she needs to say, in so many words,
"this is my first-hand account. I'm giving you all I have. Take it or
leave it.. It seems to me that Judyth not only did not understand the
magnitude of what she was positing, but the necessity of persuading others
to believe her. Judyth seems to *assume* you believe her and takes offense
when one does not.

Then we have to deal with Judyth's use and abuse of documentation. She
will take an innocent piece of documentation, such as the letter to JFK
that you found, and try to twist it to fit in with her plot. This does
not build up trust. Add that to the fact that she is selling a book for
money and you have the nightmare Judyth created for herself.

Pamela
findingjudyth.blogspot.com

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 2, 2013, 1:19:12 PM10/2/13
to
You misunderstand. There were Top Secret proejects to develop bioweapons
going on at the time such as MK/Naomi. But she was not a key player. Nor
was David Ferrie. He was working on his own projects.

> talking about, resulting in the murder of the doctor involved, it would
> seem ideally that each area has to be grounded with some sort of evidence
> that stands up to scrutiny, or else she needs to say, in so many words,
> "this is my first-hand account. I'm giving you all I have. Take it or
> leave it.. It seems to me that Judyth not only did not understand the
> magnitude of what she was positing, but the necessity of persuading others
> to believe her. Judyth seems to *assume* you believe her and takes offense
> when one does not.
>

Your quote marks are messed up, but I know what you mean. I chose to
accept what I could verify and ignore what I couldn't.

> Then we have to deal with Judyth's use and abuse of documentation. She
> will take an innocent piece of documentation, such as the letter to JFK
> that you found, and try to twist it to fit in with her plot. This does
> not build up trust. Add that to the fact that she is selling a book for
> money and you have the nightmare Judyth created for herself.
>

Time to toot my own horn again. That's why it was important that I find
her letter not just to counter the professional disinformation agents here
who said it didn't exist, but to publish the real letter so that everyone
could see that she was misrepresenting it. This is what is known as open
research.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 2, 2013, 1:56:17 PM10/2/13
to
On 10/2/2013 10:28 AM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 8:39:40 PM UTC-4, Pamela Brown wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:14:59 PM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 28, 2013 1:39:07 PM UTC-4, Pamela Brown wrote:
>>>> It is as though Ed Haslam created a parallel universe and Judyth walked
>>>> right into it.
>>
>>> That's not a bad description at all, but I would hasten to add my view
>>> that in similar fashion, Jim Garrison had earlier created a parallel
>>> universe, which Ed Haslam walked right into.
>>
>>
>> Interesting observation, Dave. Why do you think that?
>
>
> It was Garrison who first suggested that Mary Sherman's death was related
> to the Kennedy assassination in some way. This was not based on any
> evidence, however, but simply speculation. This was fairly early in the
> DA's probe, and he was pursuing the idea that homosexuality and sadism
> were important components of his suspects' motivation in killing Kennedy.

ONLY because he saw a link between Clay Shaw and David Ferrie, both
homosexuals.

> (Garrison defenders like Jim DiEugenio commonly insist that Big Jim never
> said any such thing, and that notorious "disinformation agents" like Jim
> Phelan and Hugh Aynesworth made this story up to discredit Garrison.
> Actually, Big Jim told a number of journalists that he thought the
> assassination was a homosexual thrill-killing, including not only Phelan
> and Aynesworth, but also Richard Billings, Art Kevin, Nicholas Chriss, and
> Lawrence Schiller. Perry Russo also confirmed it.)
>

It's cute that you only cite CIA sources.

> What interested Garrison in Mary Sherman was that her violent murder was
> unsolved, and she was reputed to be gay. He speculated that the murder may
> have been some kind of sex crime, and suggested that Sherman might have
> known Ferrie and Shaw. He was interested in tying Ferrie and/or Shaw to

It was the link to bioresearch that led Garrison to think that maybe
Ferrie and Sherman were working together. Not much was known at the time
about the CIA bioweapoons projects.
Geez, how many decades did it take for you to admit that Ferrie and
Oswald participated in the same CAP unit?

Dave Reitzes

unread,
Oct 2, 2013, 5:31:16 PM10/2/13
to
On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 11:22:46 AM UTC-4, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 8:44:02 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > You could say the same thing about ANY conspiracy. Show me a photo of
> > the CIA plotters meeting. Show me the minutes of their meetings.
>
>
> That is a good point.
>
> When someone from an intelligence agency comes forward to make claims
> about secret things that are going on, they may not have objective
> verification. It may have been redacted from their book, or just not
> available to them.
>
> They might, however, have had already established their credentials, or
> bona fides, so to speak, from the fact of their connection to the agency.
>
> They could be lying, they could be mistaken, but we do know they were
> involved in an intelligence group. One example of this is the Nebtrenko
> book on LHO in MC.
>
> Not exactly the case with Judyth. If she seems to want to posit a hidden
> network of intelligence gathering research to develop a bioweapon, an
> underworld of spies at Reily Coffee and throughout NOLA which she alone is
> talking about, resulting in the murder of the doctor involved, it would
> seem ideally that each area has to be grounded with some sort of evidence
> that stands up to scrutiny, or else she needs to say, in so many words,
> "this is my first-hand account. I'm giving you all I have. Take it or
> leave it..


There are any number of problems with Judyth's credibility, but her
frequent and vehement insistence that she had PROOF for all of her
allegations (see below) should give even her most loyal supporters pause.

But even Martin Shackelford -- who was every bit as insistent about how
much evidence Judyth had for many of her various claims (see below) --
admitted that she had no evidence whatsoever regarding her allegations
about a JFK conspiracy or Oswald's innocence (see below).


It seems to me that Judyth not only did not understand the
> magnitude of what she was positing, but the necessity of persuading others
> to believe her. Judyth seems to *assume* you believe her and takes offense
> when one does not.


She typically starts out by promising that she has evidence, saying
something like, "I don't expect you to take my word for any of this. I
know what an incredible story it is. If I were in your place, I'd be
skeptical, too. But believe me, I have plenty of evidence, as you will
see."

But the check is always in the mail. And, yes, she certainly does get
quite offended when people call her on it.


> Then we have to deal with Judyth's use and abuse of documentation. She
> will take an innocent piece of documentation, such as the letter to JFK
> that you found, and try to twist it to fit in with her plot. This does
> not build up trust. Add that to the fact that she is selling a book for
> money and you have the nightmare Judyth created for herself.


Given the paucity of evidence for anything SIGNIFICANT in her story (as
opposed to general background information, like her interest in science as
a teenager), it should be a major red flag when any one of her claims is
unquestionably proved false, such as her claim that the letter in question
had something to do with CIA business, when it's just a typical "fan"
letter to JFK.

But for the true believer, such things prompt little more than a shrug and
an acknowledgement that, well, okay, Judy sometimes "exaggerates."

Dave

"Lee Oswald and I worked together for the CIA in an anti-Castro project
which included delivery of live biological weapons into Cuba, one of them
aimed to kill Castro. Not only was Oswald an innocent man, he was framed
in Dallas. He was a patriot who, had he defended himself, would have led
our deaths....I really don't expect you to believe any of this without
documentation and proof. Don't be concerned: I've got the proof....I have
my defenders and I've been able to prove everything I'm saying." (Judyth
Vary Baker, biographical blurb posted at Manatee High School alumni
website)

". . . I can prove every word i [sic] am writing here--- i [sic] can
assure you that what we were doing was trying to create a biological
weapon to get castro [sic] inn [sic] what would seem to be a natural
death." (Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 2, 2002)

". . . WHEN ONE HAS BEEN TRAINED AS A SCIENTIST, AND THEY HAVE WRITTEN AND
REVIEWED AND READ MANY PAPERS, GENERALLY THEY ARE AWARE THAT IF THEY MAKE
A STATEMENT, THERE HAD BETTER BE BACK-UP. SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TRAINED
IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAY NOT REALIZE THIS RESPONSIBILITY. I TAKE THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR BACK-UP FOR MY STATEMENTS SERIOUSLY.
MU [sic] HAVING BEEN TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MEANS THAT I AM
PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE OF PROOF AND DOCUMENTATION." (Judyth
Vary Baker, Internet forum post, May 7, 2004)

"I'm in [sic] the last living witness who has verifiable evidence that Lee
Harvey Oswald did not kill John Kennedy. . . . I'm the last standing,
living witness who can prove that Lee Harvey Oswald did not murder John
Kennedy..." (2007 interview with Swedish newspaper, DALARNAS TIDNINGAR)

"When this goes public, the burden of proof will be met. " (Martin
Shackelford, alt. conspiracy.jfk post, October 22, 2000)

"The demand that we start handing out chunks of documentation at your
behest is just more bullshit, John. You can wait for publication like
everyone else....You'll get the information when everyone else does, and
no sooner. If you don't have the patience for that, it's not my problem,
nor anyone else's but your own....It "sounds to me" like you're grasping
at straws and assuming the worst--with no evidence whatsoever to support
it. You're blowing smoke, John--and ugly smoke at that. You're implying
things you can't prove, making accusations without any evidence for them,
and relying on the word of someone you normally wouldn't give an ounce of
credit to. The hypocrisy is rank, John. Nothing is being 'kept secret.' It
just hasn't been published yet. I'm sure you know a lot of colleagues who
hand over their manuscripts before publication, don't you? And I'll bet
they hand them over to those they believe will be most critical of them,
too, don't they. And you can't see the stink of your own hypocrisy? You
post repeated and even repetitive demands for evidence--and yet you have
no problem lightly impugning the integrity of a witness and several
researchers without a scrap of it!! Must be coaching the witness; must be
a fraud; must be "concealing evidence." Based on WHAT, John? Based on
NOTHING. The evidence is there, John. When it lands on you, it will land
hard. You are setting yourself up, and the results will be no one's fault
but your own. Then, you can tell us how glad you are to have it all out
there." (Martin Shackelford, alt.assassination.jfk post, October 3, 2000)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1435&st=0&p=8721&

<QUOTE ON>------------------------------

Martin Shackelford
Member
Posted 28 August 2004 - 05:24 AM

[QUOTE ON]
[quote name='Bill Byas' date='Aug 26 2004, 03:33 PM']

Could someone tell me very briefly what evidnce there is for and agaist
Judyth Baker?

Please-just facts, not opinions.

Bill Byas
[QUOTE OFF]

Evidence that she had a background in cancer research, and relating to
increasing the strength of a cancer--strong.

Evidence that she worked at Reily Co. at the same time as Oswald--strong

Evidence that she was involved with Oswald personally--three witnesses
from that summer, plus several people with whom she talked about the
relationship from 1964 on.

Evidence that she was involved with a cancer project involving David
Ferrie--a good circumstantial case--she knows a lot of unpublished
information about both Ferrie and Dr. Mary Sherman, and there are reports
of a young woman being seen around there that summer--unusual for Ferrie,
given his orientation.

As for the JFK conspiracy material, that's credible if she knew Oswald, as
she's repeating what he told her.

Martin Shackelford

<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------

Pamela Brown

unread,
Oct 2, 2013, 9:03:03 PM10/2/13
to
Not at all impossible. You miss my point. Judyth doesn't ground her
statements, nor does she draw a parallel, as you are in a very general
way.

> But she was not a key player.

What does that mean? In what?

>Nor
>
> was David Ferrie. He was working on his own projects.

Not out of the question, but you haven't included any actual information
as to why you think so.

>
>
>
> > talking about, resulting in the murder of the doctor involved, it would
>
> > seem ideally that each area has to be grounded with some sort of evidence
>
> > that stands up to scrutiny, or else she needs to say, in so many words,
>
> > "this is my first-hand account. I'm giving you all I have. Take it or
>
> > leave it.. It seems to me that Judyth not only did not understand the
>
> > magnitude of what she was positing, but the necessity of persuading others
>
> > to believe her. Judyth seems to *assume* you believe her and takes offense
>
> > when one does not.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Your quote marks are messed up, but I know what you mean. I chose to
>
> accept what I could verify and ignore what I couldn't.

You seem to be saying that Judyth's scenarios might be more persuasive if
she were to draw a parallel. I would agree to that. I think she could
have also brought in Dr. Adele Adelman's curious but analogous
experiences, but they both seem to avoid each other like a plague.


>
>
>
> > Then we have to deal with Judyth's use and abuse of documentation. She
>
> > will take an innocent piece of documentation, such as the letter to JFK
>
> > that you found, and try to twist it to fit in with her plot. This does
>
> > not build up trust. Add that to the fact that she is selling a book for
>
> > money and you have the nightmare Judyth created for herself.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Time to toot my own horn again. That's why it was important that I find
>
> her letter not just to counter the professional disinformation agents here
>
> who said it didn't exist, but to publish the real letter so that everyone
>
> could see that she was misrepresenting it. This is what is known as open
>
> research.
>

Yes. I did that too with her PBK award from UF. She didn't misuse that,
though. Your discovery is very important as she completely abused the
documentation with the JFK letter. In fact, much of what she says could
probably be debunked by using the practice that you uncovered; namely,
that she will have documentation that points to one not-secret thing and
she will try to twist it to point to something covert.

Pamela Brown

unread,
Oct 2, 2013, 10:10:08 PM10/2/13
to
Agreed. Judyth should never have done her own research. She is clueless
and unethical, from all that I have seen. She has shot herself in the
foot by shabby 'research'.

>
>
>
> But even Martin Shackelford -- who was every bit as insistent about how
>
> much evidence Judyth had for many of her various claims (see below) --
>
> admitted that she had no evidence whatsoever regarding her allegations
>
> about a JFK conspiracy or Oswald's innocence (see below).

Martin could have known better. He was not, apparently, sufficiently
grounded in history or research protocols to know when he was being fed
nonsense. But it seems to me Martin wanted Judyth to be the Holy Grail of
the assassination, and so swallowed things that didn't make sense. Also,
Martin met Judyth. I think that is an entirely more intense experience,
even, than exchanging emails with her. She seems to overpower people. I
sense that with what happened with those in Dallas when she created such a
ruckus there as well.

>
>
>
>
>
> It seems to me that Judyth not only did not understand the
>
> > magnitude of what she was positing, but the necessity of persuading others
>
> > to believe her. Judyth seems to *assume* you believe her and takes offense
>
> > when one does not.
>
>
>
>
>
> She typically starts out by promising that she has evidence, saying
>
> something like, "I don't expect you to take my word for any of this. I
>
> know what an incredible story it is. If I were in your place, I'd be
>
> skeptical, too. But believe me, I have plenty of evidence, as you will
>
> see."
>
>

Agreed, and that is completely disingenuous. That is how she draws people
in. Underneath that is this rigid insistence that you believe whatever
she has to say. She was furious with me because I didn't 'ask questions'.
Well, I asked her a number of questions, but none of them had anything to
do with her magical claims. She could have figured out that I was not a
believer, but she seemed to be too wrapped up in herself to realize that I
meant what I said -- that I would just keep an open mind.

> But the check is always in the mail. And, yes, she certainly does get
>
> quite offended when people call her on it.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Then we have to deal with Judyth's use and abuse of documentation. She
>
> > will take an innocent piece of documentation, such as the letter to JFK
>
> > that you found, and try to twist it to fit in with her plot. This does
>
> > not build up trust. Add that to the fact that she is selling a book for
>
> > money and you have the nightmare Judyth created for herself.
>
>
>
>
>
> Given the paucity of evidence for anything SIGNIFICANT in her story (as
>
> opposed to general background information, like her interest in science as
>
> a teenager), it should be a major red flag when any one of her claims is
>
> unquestionably proved false, such as her claim that the letter in question
>
> had something to do with CIA business, when it's just a typical "fan"
>
> letter to JFK.
>

Exactly. Anthony's finding her actual letter to JFK pulled the rug out
from under her. Using that documented proof that she will resort to
unethical use of documentation should be enough for anyone to question any
other 'documentation' she says she has.

>
> But for the true believer, such things prompt little more than a shrug and
>
> an acknowledgement that, well, okay, Judy sometimes "exaggerates."
>

Agreed. <sigh>

Pamela
findingjudyth.blogspot.com

0 new messages