JUDYTH: National Science Foundation scholarship and grants
Barb Junkkarinen
Judyth having received a scholarship and grants from the National
Science Foundation appear. Sometimes the word "scholarship" is used,
sometimes the word "grant."
On page 22 of her book, Judyth writes about her finishing the summer
program at Poswell Park::
QUOTE
...I received several grants and awards. The summer program finished,
I was one of only three students from Roswell Park selected continue
research under a National Science Foundation grant supplemented by the
National Cancer Institute.
[.....]
In fact, this assignment would continue to be mine for the next two
years, funded by the American Cancer Society, The National Science
Foundation, and other agencies via special grants. 59.
END QUOTE
The "59" goes to a source note that says, on page 650,
QUOTE
I have a sheaf of documents detailing the apportionment of grants to
the University of Florida under which I was funded....
END QUOTE
Martin says he has seen ALL of her documentation. Perhaps he can
direct us to this "sheaf."
Also on page 22 of her book, is a newspaper clipping from her local
paper, undated and titled "Judy Vary to Continue" ... one that has
been discussed here before, it is the one relating how she arrived
home from Roswell Park six buses late The article also notes that
Judyth would be leaving for her freshman year at St. Francis College
in Indiana in a few days, "under a $1300 scholarship from the National
Science Foundation."
She claims grants from other agencies as well, but here I am just
dealing with the National Science Foundation.
In a post from 8-11-04, Judyth said:
QUOTE
Note that in the other article, I received the
equivalent of $8,400 in today's funds form the National Science
Foundation to study what makes cancer more deadly while in college.
END QUOTE
Here is a post from Martin after I had received an e-mail from Roswell
Park saying that Judyth had not completed the summer program but had
been dismissed from it (RP has NOT retracted that information, btw):
QUOTE
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
From: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
Date: 22 Mar 2008 11:10:02 -0400
Local: Sat, Mar 22 2008 8:10 am
Subject: Re: Rosell Park e-mail offer to Martin, now completed
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
How do you explain the fact that when the program ended, she received
her National Science Foundation scholarship? I wouldn't think they
would go ahead and give that to someone who was "dismissed."
Martin
END QUOTE
So, there is no doubt that there is a claim of Judyth being given
scholarship/grant money from the National Science Foundation for her
cancer research, not only in 1961 (which is my primary focus here) but
also while at the University of Florida which would include 1962 and
1963.
And in a reply to me on 10-18-07, Martin said:
QUOTE
Also, you seem to be confusing the NSF grants. She participated in
Roswell
under an NSF grant to Roswell. As a result of her work at Roswell, she
THEN received an NSF scholarship--these are two separate things, Barb.
Martin
END QUOTE
I am not confused in the least. Judyth, LIKE OTHER STUDENTS IN THE
SUMMER PROGRAM, was paid their stipend from grants monies RP received
from the NSF and other agencies. That is how the program is supported.
Students receive a stipend that is essentially their "pay" which they
then have to cover their living expenses, incidentals, etc. These were
not NSF grants to any individual student.
That is a whole different thing from Judyth being given a scholarship
or grant to continue her cancer research ... on the heels of RP
entering St. Francis College in the Fall of 1961 in Indiana, or in
1962/1963 while at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
Much could be related about how the National Science Foundation that,
as they themselves note on their webpage,....
"As described in our strategic plan, NSF is the only federal agency
whose mission includes support for all fields of fundamental science
and engineering, except for medical sciences. "
And how the government partner agency that funds medical research is
the National Institutes of Health, and the specific arm of that that
funds cancer research is the National Cancer Institue, but there
really is no reason to get bogged down there as the following
documents tell exactly what institutuons, what projects ... and what
people received National Science Foundation grants and fellowships in
1961 ...and 1962 ... and 1963. They gave no scholarships ... just
grants and fellowships.
These are the annual reports that detail every penny given out ... to
whom and why ... in those 3 years.
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1961/annualreports/start.htm
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1962/annualreports/start.htm
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1963/annualreports/start.htm
There is nary a Vary in any of them.
Barb :-)
John McAdams
Don't hold your breath.
>Also on page 22 of her book, is a newspaper clipping from her local
>paper, undated and titled "Judy Vary to Continue" ... one that has
>been discussed here before, it is the one relating how she arrived
>home from Roswell Park six buses late The article also notes that
>Judyth would be leaving for her freshman year at St. Francis College
>in Indiana in a few days, "under a $1300 scholarship from the National
>Science Foundation."
>
>She claims grants from other agencies as well, but here I am just
>dealing with the National Science Foundation.
>
>In a post from 8-11-04, Judyth said:
>
>QUOTE
>
>Note that in the other article, I received the
>equivalent of $8,400 in today's funds form the National Science
>Foundation to study what makes cancer more deadly while in college.
>
>END QUOTE
>
Bingo!
I never particularly bothered to challenge the "NSF grant" thing from
Judyth, because it didn't seem vastly implausible to me that they had
some program for "promising students."
But the NSF would never give a grant to an entering college freshman
to study ANY PARTICULAR SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM. Those grants were for
Ph.D. scientists.
If Team Judyth disagrees with this, let them go to the reports you
linked to and show any single grant to somebody who did not have a
doctoral degree.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
Is there any grant to any college faculty member where Judyth went to
college for "Support of Promising Students" or "Development of
Tomorrow's Scientific Talent" or some such?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
Dave Reitzes
I'm sure Martin has all the "documentation and proof" at his
fingertips.
Doesn't he always?
On Apr 27, 4:52�pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Dave
John McAdams
But she said this very early on, right?
Which suggests she was exaggerating her life story from very early.
When she began to put it all together in the late 1990s, she threw
together a lot of bits and pieces, including some old stuff
(adulterous affair) and some newer stuff (Haslam's "bioweapons lab").
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
There are all kinds of programs and things listed under "Oher than
Basic Research Grants" .... lots of teacher training programs at
different levels ... even "Undergraduste Research Participation
Programs" and "Other Education in the Sciences" categories. Nothing
like what you are talking about shows grants to either St. Francis
College in Fort Wayne, Indiana (in fact, St. Francis had zero grants
at all in any of these annual reports) and none in any category like
this to University of Florida.
Barb :-)
John McAdams
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:14:39 -0500, John McAdams
><john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>In a post from 8-11-04, Judyth said:
>>>
>>>QUOTE
>>>
>>>Note that in the other article, I received the
>>>equivalent of $8,400 in today's funds form the National Science
>>>Foundation to study what makes cancer more deadly while in college.
>>>
>>>END QUOTE
>>>
>>
>>Bingo!
>>
>>I never particularly bothered to challenge the "NSF grant" thing from
>>Judyth, because it didn't seem vastly implausible to me that they had
>>some program for "promising students."
>
>There are all kinds of programs and things listed under "Oher than
>Basic Research Grants" .... lots of teacher training programs at
>different levels ... even "Undergraduste Research Participation
>Programs" and "Other Education in the Sciences" categories. Nothing
>like what you are talking about shows grants to either St. Francis
>College in Fort Wayne, Indiana (in fact, St. Francis had zero grants
>at all in any of these annual reports) and none in any category like
>this to University of Florida.
>
Makes sense. Little colleges like St. Francis simply aren't in the
running for NSF grants -- at least not except in rare instances.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
jfk...@gmail.com
Translation: McAdams, realizing he can no longer claim Judyth was
'inserting herself into history' in the 90's, is attempting to revise his
position. Just one of the pitfalls of taking a narrow stance from the
start.
Barb Junkkarinen
particularly on anything Roswell Park, for a long long time.
I was waiting for you to post a report of what you learned from your
conversation with Dr. Mirand. What all you learned.
Now I see that at least the basic confirmation from Dr. Mirand that
she had, indeed, been dismissed from the program was transmitted to
Judyth first.
She's given her "explanation" ... I'm wondering when you will be
posting on *everything* you were told during your conversation with
Dr. Mirand ... and how her "explanation" comports with what Dr. Mirand
said.
Sometime soon, I hope.
Barb :-)
howardp
meat of the matter:
Dear Ms. Junkkarinen:
I am writing to you to help to answer your query regarding the Fall
1961 Indiana Academy of Science meeting. Judyth Vary was a co-
presenter of a program entitled "Studies on the Increase in vitro of
Mitotic Activity and Melangenesis in the RPMI HA # 5 (7113) Strain
Melano."
--------The good sister was not a co-presenter. Nuns chaperoned her
from St. Francis -- a student just two weeks into her undergraduate
career -- and one nun, M. Claire, introduced her paper at the
conference. Not a single nun had a part in Judyth's project, which, in
any case, summarized her work at Roswell. Note the date: October 19.
It is the same paper she gave at Roswell. Are you saying they
conducted a project jointly, then wrote a paper about it, then
submitted the paper, then had it accepted...all in the space of a few
weeks? Surely you aren't saying this. It was the same paper.
--------If you are still in doubt, you might want to see if her
supposed "co-presenter" ever presented or co-presented any paper on
melanoma, or the disease of your choice, anywhere else in her
lifetime.
It was presented to the Academy's Committee (also known as a
"Section") on Bacteriology at the Fall 1961 Meeting. The meeting
occurred on October 19, 1961 at Indiana State College, Terre Haute,
Indiana.
------ Judyth turns out to be remarkably good at some details and
remarkably bad at others. She is awful at identifying faces, much
better on remembering people's names, much worse on the names of
groups. She probably mistook "bacteriology" for "biology" in her
memory. In any case, she was nervous as hell and paid little to no
attention to where she had been driven. Unfortunately, she did not
fact-check herself and, for this, Martin and I must share the blame.
You deserve credit for finding evidence of what she said existed. The
thing is, Barb, no one intentionally changed names on you. It makes no
sense for her to do that. Why would she make it harder to confirm the
truth of what she claims when that claim supports her larger story and
is in fact true? Trickery only hurts her, as you have shown.
------ Even if the paper was co-presented, which is not the case, how
does that hurt her story? Students and professors regularly publish
papers together in the sciences, as I am sure you know, even when the
student does most of the work. Do you have a different background? I
ask because you don't even consider this possibility. If you are aware
of this practice, then your analysis tells me more about your motives
than hers.
I have attached a bitmap (bmp) scan showing some more information
about this presentation.
I was not able to find an original program for the fall meeting in our
Archives collection (of course as luck would have it the collection
skips both 1960 and 1961), but this was published in v. 71 of the
Proceedings. Citation for the scan: "Studies on the Increase in vitro
of Mitotic Activity and Melangenesis in the RPMI HA # 5 (7113) Strain
Melano." Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science. V. 71 (1961)
p. 71. This article appears as an abstract only and is not available
in full through the Academy's Proceedings.
I hope that this has helped to answer your question about Judyth Vary.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Anika
[........], Librarian
Indiana Academy of Science
Indiana State Library, Catalog Division
140 N. Senate Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
END QUOTE
It's actually a jpg that I received. I will reply to this post and
attempt to post the jpg. If it does not appear, somebody let me know
as my newsreader still doesn't show me posts with attachments. What it
is, is a short synopsis (abstract) of what was presented. It notes
Judyth Vary co[presented with a Sr. M. Clare Francis (long since
deceased I learned from a nun at St. Francis) and amongst the
scientific jargon,
------You didn't understand the "scientific jargon"? Was it too
complicated for you, who have billed yourself in the past as a whiz
adult on things medical? It just may be that this jargon you find so
lost in reflects knowledge you don't have. That kind of disqualifies
you as someone who can say anything authoritative about the quality or
level of her work.
------So at the age of 17Judyth could write rings around you on the
subject of cancer. To me, that is impressive. Welcome to Team Judyth.
You and I have every hope of getting along as well as Martin and I
have.
it notes that, "Although results are inconclusive at this date,
indications suggest that specific...." and at the end it mentions an
area for "future endeavor."
------This is a silly attempt to make it appear she never actually
delivered the paper that you have already established she delivered!
Ever hear of the expression, "can't have your cake and eat it, too"?
Surely you are aware that scholars routinely suggest that further
research is needed along the lines pursued in their papers. Only bias
could skew the natural and innocent meaning of this phrase. The name
for this tactic is "innuendo" - although a weak example of the art.
Searching for the incorrect name of the organization made this
impossible to track and verify ... almost. :-)
------Humility has no place here, Barb. Of all people, I didn't think
I would have to remind you of that.
So here is how it stacks up....
CONFIRMED:
A paper having to do with melanoma was presented the Fall of 1961.
------It was presented by Judyth Vary and based on her research at
Roswell in the summer of 1961. There was no co-presenter.
WHAT JUDYTH NEGLECTED TO SAY:
She was a CO-PRESENTER
------Wrong.
DENIED:
A bunch of nuns going along to vouch for her....one of those nuns was
presenting WITH her.
------"Vouch"? She could have used the word. But all they did was
drive her to the "bacteriology" conference, and one of them introduced
her.
Presentation at Notre Dame ... it was in Terre Haute at Indiana U and
this was the regular Fall meeting of the Indiana Academy of Science.
------That's my Judyth.
------Does this being a "regular meeting" somehow mean something?
First student/only student asked to present a paper ...NO. That is
what the Academy DOES.
------She was the only one her age to present a paper at that session.
That was her impression at least. Since they had a Junior Academy,
too, the barely-out-of-high-school Judyth may well have been the
youngest person ever to present at the Senior Academy.
And Martin posted it was considered "significant" ... yet it made it
into the Proceedings as an abstract only, it was not published in the
Proceedings.
------No reason is given for it not being published in full. Yours is
a shaky inference at best. There may be any of a number of reasons for
it. Ochsner/Moore told her she could only go into so much detail in
writing about her summer work. Perhaps they made sure only the
abstract remains. Who knows? She was not told.
This is not an "academy" like a school. It is an academy of science
people ..including some lay people .... many members/officers, like
the secretary, are professors at local colleges and universities. They
band together in the interests of science and LOOK for interesting
projects students, scientists, etc are working on.
------So she reported on an "interesting project." I presume this
lowly "Academy" thought it an intelligent report at the very least, or
else "the interests of science" would be poorly served by its being
presented. I am impressed by its title alone and, like you, would
probably not be able to get past the "jargon." That would seem to
count in her favor.
------Heavens, you might as well be saying that she presented at an
Amateur Hour conference to a room packed with gum-chewing
teenyboppers! You imply that anyone presenting there must be a nobody
destined to remain a nobody. I think your librarian friend would
probably take issue with this view. You dig out the stuff well enough,
but when it comes to analysis, you might as well be standing on your
head.
I asked that specific question of the Academy librarian, and this is
the reply:
QUOTE
You're very welcome, Barb!
It was quite normal for students and other "laypeople" of all types to
become members, attend meetings, and even present and publish in the
Proceedings. Certainly not always a tenured professor, in other words.
------Where does she say that only tenured professes can present?
In 1961 there was also a Junior Academy of Science which sought
membership from Indiana high school students and they had their own
meetings where even younger scientists could present on their own
research and writings.
------Dare I say this is irrelevant, except for the inescapable
conclusion that her project was considered interesting enough to be
presented at the Senior and not the Junior Academy. Check it out,
Barb. She had just graduated high school! I recall being a whole lot
more confident as a junior or senior than in my first weeks as a
freshman.
Before the meetings there is a call for papers and presentations and
then the Committees decide which papers will be heard.
------I'm sure "quality of research content" was left off the list of
criteria used to make such decisions.
Again, hope this helps and please let me know if I can be of further
assistance.
~Anika
END QUOTE
I can hear the, "Big deal, so she just got the name wrong" response
already. They can save it.
------I'm sure you wish we would. But this is a job for the Logic
Police. Stick to digging for details, Barb. As an analyst, your agenda
is showing.
A couple weeks before she gave the paper, reporting to someone in a
letter that it was the Indiana Biological Association, is one
thing .... a bit odd, for a giddy whiz kid ... but then after having
actually been there...meeting and greeting ... the oldest such
organization in the state ...didn't she pick up a program? ... that
really stretches credulity.
------She didn't see a program. Maybe she was otherwise occupied. I
have a copy of the Roswell Park summer program brochure and the
Science Fair program, if you're a program buff. I too find it hard to
believe that there was no program, but, for whatever reason, she did
not come away with one.
------Once again, I call upon the Logic Police: this is what is called
"beside the point." You have already conceded that she appeared as a
presenter. You don't get to go back and declare it evidence against
her authenticity that she can't produce a conference brochure when you
already admit she gave a paper at the conference!!
------If you knew her, it would not "stretch credulity" that she could
lose sight of such details. Ever hear of the "absent-minded
professor"? At 17, she was well on her way. I am sorrier than you are
that she can turn a corner and get lost. On a more balanced view, it
should be even more remarkable that she was able to remember one
percent of the details she has. You're about as fair and balanced as
Fox News.
------And in the end, she always seems to get where she is headed,
sometimes depending on the kindness of friends and strangers who
escort her and keep her from getting too lost. This jibes completely
with the Judyth I know.
But she ran with Indiana Biological Association for all these years...
and what that did was make it almost impossible to fact check
-----If you knew her, you would know that this is who she is. She runs
with -- or past -- things she considers settled or secondary, whether
they are or are not settled or secondary. That is one reason I blew up
over her book. Her headlong approach to life isn’t entirely without
merit. It also explains how she evolved as a cancer researcher from
inducing cancer in mice at age 16 in high school, to strengthening
cancer cells at age 17 at Roswell Park, to tracking cancer cells at
age 18 in Gainesville, to weaponizing cancer cells at age 19-20 in New
Orleans.
------You have taken us to age 17 1/2 -- showing, you maintain, a
pattern of failure -- and yet, despite her many failures, as
characterized by you, she is giving technical papers on melanoma that
you can only describe as jargon?!! I bet some people in the audience
understood.
and discover that, once again ... just like Roswell Park, the green
glass,the Russian class (and other things as we shall see), a grain of
truth has been inflated and embellished beyong recognition ... all,
seemingly, for the drama, to point out how special and important she
was ... and to make it a credible (Judyth thinks) stepping stone
culminating in her ultimate glory in Ferrie's kitchen.
------And yet, despite her repeated failures, she somehow gets closer
and closer to a time and place at which a secret plot could be hatched
in which she could, by virtue of her special training, play a major
role. I seem to recall people saying not long ago that she knew
nothing about science and may have been, at most, a lab technician.
The deeper you dig, Barb, the higher the expectation that her
adventure would stop. But it doesn't. If she got expelled from
Roswell, as you claim, it sure wasn't for lack of talent. In the fall,
she was given a 2nd NSF grant and a grant from the American Cancer
Society. Ochsner was still taking good care of her.
So, now, I guess I best don my helmet and flak jacket ... and prepare
for more incoming from Martin and Pamela on my distortions, vague and
cherry picked information, "pseudo" verification, tilting at
windmills, lack of any real research, etc.
------On the contrary, you have done a fine job. I bet at the start of
this crusade of yours, that you never expected that she could have
written, or even co-written, a paper on melanoma at the age of 17.
Keep going, Barb, but I will say to you what I have said (often in
vain) to her: watch the speculations and inferences. There is such a
thing as trying too hard.
Heck, they can't possibly latch onto my confirming Judyth did present
a paper that Fall ... this documentation is no different than ones I
have sought out and presented on other topics
------Watch this space for more on Roswell Park.
------As for the green glass, she never lived in New Orleans in any
year other than 1963. Find her there any other year and you win a
prize. I don't know where or when you think she got her hands on the
glass, or even found out that Reily gave away such glasses, but I'm
sure you will make up something incoherent. For what it's worth, her
children became aware of it 28 years ago. When do you think she
started planning this hoax? 1961? 1963? 1980? Nothing beats tying your
destiny to one of the most hated men in history. With that as a goal,
you can hardly get too soon a start.
------I'm glad you're chopping away at the underbrush -- and dig you
must -- but you seem lost in the trees: there is the forest to be
considered. You are drawing conclusions that make no sense. That this
is so is evident from the fact that each time it seems you've caught
her out, her life takes her to the next step anyway, as if she were
telling the truth -- and you are forced to trail along! Her sins, as
you recite them, do not slow her down. They never quite catch up with
her. They are as if they never occurred. They are as if the product of
others’ lapses in memory or your own lapses in reasoning. The way she
keeps on going, the lady must be the Eveready Bunny. Or a magician,
because she sure has the magic touch. Keep on researching. The way
things are going for you, pretty soon you will discover that she was
the first woman president of the United States. (- :
.. so how could they! But, of course, if they do (and of course they
will!) ... they also have to accept the information from the same
source that relates there was nothing unique about a student
presenting at one of their meetings. A co-presenter.
No need for a motorcade of nun doctors to vouch for her. And on and
on. This was easy to find once I had the Indiana Academy of Science.
Looking for the Indiana Biological Association it wasn't possible to
find out if a paper was presented at all ... let alone that there was
a co-presenter, that she wasn't the first/only student to present, and
on and on.
All these years her supporters yukking up the Indiana Biological
Association and the rest of the tale. Obviously, no one made the least
little effort to fact check any of it.
Indiana Biological Association: SOLVED
Reality not quite matching the story: TYPICAL.
Maybe I'd better put on my boots too.....
Barb :-)
jfk...@gmail.com
>
> read more »
Thanks, Howard. A welcome breath of fresh air after the thrashing of
Barb's heavy mudslinging. Do you think she's ready to go back to square
one and start with an objective approach toward Judyth? Unlikely as that
possibility might seem, it would be much more efficient and productive
than the frantic attempts to make something, anything, stick that have, as
you pointed out, backfired magnificently.
cdddraftsman
>
> read more »
Oh ! And here I thought I could get a grant ? Shucks :-(
tl
Barb Junkkarinen
[.....]
>Thanks, Howard. A welcome breath of fresh air after the thrashing of
>Barb's heavy mudslinging. Do you think she's ready to go back to square
>one and start with an objective approach toward Judyth? Unlikely as that
>possibility might seem, it would be much more efficient and productive
>than the frantic attempts to make something, anything, stick that have, as
>you pointed out, backfired magnificently.
If I wasn't objective in the way I am going about seeking verification
of Judyth's claims ... and in presenting all the facts and
circumstances that I find ... there would be no confirmation that
Judyth ever presented a paper anywhere.
I could have stopped when I'd exhausted the possibilities for finding
that the IBA ever existed ...which according to state records and
multiple university biology departments .. it did not, Or, when I got
the info from the Academy of Science, I could have sat on that part of
it and not disclosed what I had discovered.
I don't operate that way.
Perhaps you do? Or can we expect you to finally report on your
conversation with Mirand?
You and Martin made big accusations and all kinds of attacks on me
when I reported what I had bee told by Roswell Park ...and then
confirmed with a second source before posting it ... that Judyth had
been dismissed from Rowell Park.
Martin rushed to the keyboard to say RP had denied it (which isn't
really what the e-mail he received from the Calif "researcher" said in
the first place) ... telling me I had "been played" and was "toast."
You frothed all over the place indignantly and posting that Mirand
should be confronted with the "documentation" she had not been
dismissed, but had finished the program in grand style ...and posting
that you had left voice messages for him and would talk to him when he
returned from vacation. Martin promised "details" soon.
Sooo...what do we get?
Now it is *JUDYTH* who confirms Mirand told researchers she had been
dismissed .... and we haven't heard one word from you ... or Martin,
for that matter. What kind of objectivity and research protocol is
that?
Judyth rambled an explanation ... not unexpected.
So, how does her explanation comport with *all* that was learned from
Dr. Mirand? Are you going to post that info yourself, or wair for it
to filter in from somewhere else???
No need to be shy.You weren't when you were all over me about the
info. Mirand confirmed that info.
If Mirand had said she was dismissed but somehow stayed in the
program anyway, finished as a star presenting a great paper and had
awards and a scholarship from the NSF heaped upon her ... do you
really think anyone believes that you and Martin wouldn't have been
melting your keyboards to get that information posted?
Post *all* the info from the conversation with Mirand.
Now THAT would be a breath of fresh air.
Steve Thomas
The only thing i see backfiring is Judyth's failed attempt to insert
herself into the JFK assassination.
paul seaton
Howard,
First, my cards on the table : I don't believe the 'interesting' parts of
Judyth's story - I mean her supposed connection to LHO & Ferrie & all
that, though I do think it's clear she was a very bright student, and did
work at Reilly.
Now, what I want to ask you is , what ( aside from JVB's body language )
actual hard physical evidence convinces you of the truth of her story - ie
what -for you - kills the hypothesis that she basically just made up the
whole JFK connection ?
It would be interesting if you could boil your belief down to a finite
hard core of key facts that swing you in her favour. I should say that -
in my state of ignorance, not having read her book - I am under the
impression that there are no such facts.
Paul S
ps: post also cc'ddirect to Howard
kbs8...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I just wanted to jump in here for a second to say that I really am
enjoying all of these JUDYTH threads. I've only made a few posts in the
JFK group but have read a lot of the information here. The reason the
JUDYTH threads are so interesting to me is that they cover a recent
addition to the JFK saga. The books you see on Amazon.com cover parts of
the assassination that have been gone over with a fine tooth comb for
years. However, the investigative work that Barb is doing is up to the
minute new information and it's great to see all the correspondence
unfold. I just want to say thanks to Barb for going through all the
trouble to get to the truth (whether it supports or damages Judyth's
story) and placing it on a public forum for critical review.
Dave Reitzes
Barb is doing a terrific job. It's a pity no one bothered to do any
serious research into Judyth's background BEFORE the History Channel ran
an entire hour-long documentary on her claims and a number of people
shelled out fifty bucks for her book.
Dave
Anthony Marsh
Barb's only goal is to dig up dirt.
> serious research into Judyth's background BEFORE the History Channel ran
It's a pity that no one bothered to do any serious fact checking before
her book was published. It's a pity that 99.99% of the bandwidth here is
wasted on attacking Judyth.
Barb Junkkarinen
Thank you. :-)
Kinda funny how one thing opens up other things that need to be
confirmed or denied.... a regular pandora's box. Whatever I can
document, one way or the other ... that's all I want.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>On May 1, 10:52?pm, kbs88...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 10:16?pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
Thanks, Dave. And, go figure ... just what kind of fact checking on
even the ABC's of her story did THC do before that whole production?
Bests,
Barb :-)
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Dave Reitzes wrote:
>> On May 1, 10:52?pm, kbs88...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Apr 30, 10:16?pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
You wish. :-)
>
>> serious research into Judyth's background BEFORE the History Channel ran
>
>It's a pity that no one bothered to do any serious fact checking before
>her book was published.
But it in just looking for dirt to do fact checking now, eh, Tony?
>It's a pity that 99.99% of the bandwidth here is
>wasted on attacking Judyth.
At least that bandwith now involves largely commentary based on fact
checking that has been done and is ongoing.
It's a pity that 99.99% of your bandwith is on nothing at all ...
except for personal attacks. :-)
Anthony Marsh
Except for the fact that Barb's only agenda is to attack Judyth at all
costs.
jfk...@gmail.com
I agree that Judyth's statements suffer when viewed in a vacuum. It is
the current process with a witness to simply accept what they say and move
forward with it. The episode of the "Smoking Guns" runs the story of
Weldon's mystery witness. I provided Weldon with research that I had done
at the Henry Ford Museum as well as all my documentation on Vaughn
Ferguson, but they decided to dismiss that and run with Whittaker's
statements. That is a current 'process' and some researchers refuse to do
anything else.
Ironically, it seems to me Judyth's statements gain strength when given
additional research and documentation, as well as when they are oriented
in the get-Castro, undercover-medical community in NOLA in 1963. Barb's
contributions in bringing forth information may long outlive her attempts
to simply dig up dirt on Judyth.
Dixie M Dea
Anthony said.....
Barb's only goal is to dig up dirt.
It's a pity that no one bothered to do any serious fact checking before
her book was published. It's a pity that 99.99% of the bandwidth here is
wasted on attacking Judyth.
__________________________________
Barb's only goal is in one thing and that is in learning, the
truth.....just as most of us want to know. There is no dirt digging going
on. No one has attempted to try and find out anything scandulous about
Judyth to do with her own personal life....that is not of any importance
to us. No one has attempted to go beyond what she herself has claimed.
But, when someone has made extroadinary claims regarding their past life
and goes so far as to write a book about it, then extroadinary proof is
required, to go along with it.
After all, these claims involve a tragedy in our history that is of utmost
importance to us, particulary those of us, who attempt to study the JFK
Assassination. It also involves the accusation of Lee Harvey Oswald as
JFK's assassin. Some here, do believe he was guilty and others of us do
not believe that he was. Judyth claims to have played a role in LHO's life
before the assassination. I do believe we need to know if her claims are
true or not.
If she had written a fictional book, no one would care to try and dig
deeper for the truth. It would just merely be a good story. But, that has
not been the case and her claims were told as though true. Most of us
cannot just take someones word on such claims. We need to know whether the
claims are actually true or just fantasy.
It is my strong belief, that if Barb discovered a claim to be true, she
would disclose that fact, just as she will disclose any descrepencis she
has discovered. Barb, is willing to put her time and effort into checking
out claims, which I don't feel warrants the hostility and redicule that
she has received from the Judyth supporters.....irregardless of how much
it seems to upset them. Do we not deserve the truth? With no proof for all
the claims, we are never going to know the truth, unless someone does as
Barb, is attempting to do.
Many times I have stated that I have never believed Judyth's claims, from
when I first read about her, by Amy Goodwin, at Salon.com. Somehow it just
made my own built-in BS detector rise sky-high. Was that fair of me?
Probably not, and I will admit that. But sometimes, we just seem to
believe something or we don't. All the years with Judyth on the various
forums, I never changed my initial opinion. However, when her book was
finally published, I actualy ordered it immediately. I also made a
decision to attempt to read it with an open mind, which I did not
previously have. I also beliieved I was going to finally see all the
promised documnetaion that would prove her claims. Throughout her book, I
kept asking myself if certain claims might actually be true. Yet, by the
time I finished the book, I realized that if any portion of her claims
were even possibly true, then she messed it all up with both fantasy and
embellishment in order to enhance the claims. In addition, there was way
too many excuses for different things, including why she didn't have some
proof of one thing or another. The promised documentation was not there!
Many claims were overkill in strange sort of apologizing & explaining
different reasons for different claims. I was finally able to conclude
that there was just no way possible to know what is truth and what isn't,
because of all the extra embellishments to almost every claim. Yet,
actually that seems to be what Barb has been discovering too.
The explanations I have read so far, in response to Barb's discoveries,
(which is of course only my own opinion) is that it only appears to be an
altering of former claims, to fit the new discoveries. Again, only claims
without any proof. I find it rather problematic that anyone would keep
very minor tokens of the past, that don't actually even prove anything,
for 45 years and yet not keep items of real significance, such as
meaningful Papers they had presented at some event....and then to also
only offer excuses, as to why they are unavailable. So, it still all boils
down to if we are willing to believe or disbelieve claims without proof.
That is acceptable to some and yet not to most of us.
I am in agreement that there is too much redicule and hostility expressed
with both the believers and disbelievers. But I especially see mostly
redicule and hostility, along with snide remarks, coming from the
supporters. That is, rather then attempting to actually do any digging or
even in the discussing of real issues, I see no attempt to try and find
the truth, in the midst of descrepencies. It strikes me that they only
need blind faith to ascept her claims as the truth. Yet that is what Barb
is attempting to do, rather then to just accept that Judyth has been
untruthful....and that just seems to upset the supporters. One person even
accused her of frantcally searching, yet at the same time, this person was
actually the one frantically attempting to break down the doors of
Roswell, hoping to find someone to recant what Barb was told and also
attempting to reduce the informer to one of minor significance in actually
knowing anything. Barb gave ample opportunuty for someone who did know
(Mirand) to recant and he did not do so, which is quite clear, from even
Judyth's latest account.
I have no idea of how or when this is all going to end, but it certainly
has consumed us for many years now.....possibly too many years!
Dixie
howardp
wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2008 22:32:59 -0400, jfk2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [.....]
>
> >Thanks, Howard. �A welcome breath of fresh air after the thrashing of
> >Barb's heavy mudslinging. �Do you think she's ready to go back to square
> >one and start with an objective approach toward Judyth? Unlikely as that
> >possibility might seem, it would be much more efficient and productive
> >than the frantic attempts to make something, anything, stick that have, as
> >you pointed out, backfired magnificently.
>
> If I wasn't objective in the way I am going about seeking verification
> of Judyth's claims ... and in presenting all the facts and
> circumstances that I find ... there would be no confirmation that
> Judyth ever presented a paper anywhere.
YES, YOU ARE RIGHT! I TOLD YOU ALREADY: WELCOME TO TEAM JUDYTH. You are
the best researcher we ever had.
> I could have stopped when I'd exhausted the possibilities for finding
> that the IBA ever existed ...
No you could not have stopped. Because of what you found out later, that
the IBA, whether it exists or not, was not the issue. Barely out of high
school, she gave a paper to a Senior Academy on melanoma, the same paper
that she gave at Roswell.
which according to state records and
> multiple university biology departments .. it did not, Or, when I got
> the info from the Academy of Science, I could have sat on that part of
> it and not disclosed what I had discovered.
Again, I am thrilled that you kept digging.
> I don't operate that way.
Good. There is no sarcasm here at all. Good.
> Perhaps you do? Or can we expect you to finally report on your
> conversation with Mirand?
I never spoke to Mirand, but I asked questions he refused to answer. When
asked if your report was the official position of RP, I got no response.
Nor did others who asked. Since he and Moore are the only ones alive from
1961, and Moore is on his deathbed with no memory at all, it comes down to
Mirand. Or does it? She went on to the next step anyway. You're saying you
can ethically let it stand over a housing violation supposedly incurred in
the last week of the program. Oh no, you can't let it stand there.
Moreover, when asked to confirm that Moore was her sponsor and that her
work was exemplary, he wouldn't confirm or deny either. Now, we already
know she worked with Moore. So I can presume from the course her life
CONTINUED ON after RP that whatever happened there did not sour anyone on
her skills.
By the way: Roswell supposedly told you that it had no records from that
era and yet Craig Johnson, the current head of the summer program, managed
to produce a record on Judyth. Isn't this a contradiction? Do I have to
call in the logic police again? Mirand is an old man who has been asked to
recall the nature of a student's violation 45 years ago. I tend to doubt
he would send her home on such a flimsy basis with the end of the term so
near. I tend to believe, also, that his memory of just another student (no
genius, of course) may not be entirely intact. Then again, this is just
logic and common sense.
> You and Martin made big accusations and all kinds of attacks on me
> when I reported what I had bee told by Roswell Park ...and then
> confirmed with a second source before posting it ... that Judyth had
> been dismissed from Rowell Park.
>
> Martin rushed to the keyboard to say RP had denied it (which isn't
> really what the e-mail he received from the Calif "researcher" said in
> the first place) ... telling me I had "been played" and was "toast."
> You frothed all over the place indignantly and posting that Mirand
> should be confronted with the "documentation" she had not been
> dismissed, but had finished the program in grand style ...and posting
> that you had left voice messages for him and would talk to him when he
> returned from vacation. Martin promised "details" soon.
>
> Sooo...what do we get?
>
> Now it is *JUDYTH* who confirms Mirand told researchers she had been
> dismissed .... and we haven't heard one word from you ...
Hey, I am not Martin. And this is the first time I'm writing on this
subject. "Indignantly"? Cut me some slack. You did a great job. I never
spoke to Mirand. But it does seem to me kind of irrelevant given that she
went immediately into college and first thing gives a scientific paper
based on her Roswell work. Why don't you engage her on the subject? Afraid
you might not be able to understand her "jargon"?
or Martin,
> for that matter. What kind of objectivity and research protocol is
> that?
>
> Judyth rambled an explanation ... not unexpected.
Judyth rambles. She gets enough trouble from me. Nobody promised us a rose
garden.
> So, how does her explanation comport with *all* that was learned from
> Dr. Mirand? Are you going to post that info yourself, or wair for it
> to filter in from somewhere else???
Are you talking to me?
> No need to be shy.You weren't when you were all over me about the
> info. Mirand confirmed that info.
Apparently he won't confirm it a second time. He thinks you are the tops,
so why don't you ask him again. I'm now on the paper you can't even
understand the abstract of.
> �If Mirand had said she was dismissed but somehow stayed in the
> program anyway, finished as a star presenting a great paper and had
> awards and a scholarship from the NSF heaped upon her ... do you
> really think anyone believes that you and Martin wouldn't have been
> melting your keyboards to get that information posted?
You are right. But he never responded to me or anyone I hang with. He also
has not reconfirmed to you, has he? Perhaps it is because the nonexistent
record seen by Johnson doesn't contain the info he "remembers." Maybe he
is shy over issues related to the assassination. I know I didn't mention
JFK. Did you?
> Post *all* the info from the conversation with Mirand.
I thought I said I never spoke to him.
> Now THAT would be a breath of fresh air.
Wow - you ignored about 75% of what I wrote. Why not just accept the
compliment and join us?
Please dig into other things I may have taken at face value. (My initial
intention was simply to help the lady write her memoirs and give people a
chance to judge for themselves. Liebengood told CBS she deserved a
"platform," at least based on his research.)
If you can find out about the human use license at Florida, that would be
great. The way Judyth tells it, the self-created license was used to evade
government red tape. It may well be so secret (ethically questionable)
that they would deny it ever existed, It's possible, you know You really
shouldn't be expecting confirmation from people who might not want to
cripple their reputations by association with SV40 (RP) (see Haslam),
low-profile radiation work (UF) or JFK.
H
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Apr 30, 12:25?am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> On 29 Apr 2008 22:32:59 -0400, jfk2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> [.....]
>>
>> >Thanks, Howard. ?A welcome breath of fresh air after the thrashing of
>> >Barb's heavy mudslinging. ?Do you think she's ready to go back to square
Nothing about a "housing violatioon" or the ramble that follwed
"stands" for anything ... or are you another "researcher" who think
letting a claimant self-verify their claims (or their own excuses and
explanations) is some sort of valid protocol?
>
>Moreover, when asked to confirm that Moore was her sponsor and that her
>work was exemplary, he wouldn't confirm or deny either. Now, we already
>know she worked with Moore. So I can presume from the course her life
>CONTINUED ON after RP that whatever happened there did not sour anyone on
>her skills.
So sayeth Judyth.
>
>By the way: Roswell supposedly told you that it had no records from that
>era
Nobody told me any such thing, nor did I ever say they did. That would
be Martin, as I recall.
>and yet Craig Johnson, the current head of the summer program, managed
>to produce a record on Judyth.
Yes ... one that shows no award or scholarship made and reflects her
only having received $250 in stipend while there. That doesn't cover 8
weeks at the $150/mo Judyth claims ... only covers 5 weeks of the
$200/mo two students I have been in contact with independently state
was the amount of the stipend they received.
> Isn't this a contradiction? Do I have to
>call in the logic police again?
Someone to sweep up your straw might be a better idea. :-)
> Mirand is an old man who has been asked to
>recall the nature of a student's violation 45 years ago. I tend to doubt
>he would send her home on such a flimsy basis with the end of the term so
>near.
According to Judyth it was close to the end ... in her book, she
relates Mirand being very angry with her over where she was living AT
THE BEGINNING of the program.
Ask Judyth about it ... I'm sure she'll have no problem explaining her
contradictions. She never does. ;-)
> I tend to believe, also, that his memory of just another student (no
>genius, of course) may not be entirely intact. Then again, this is just
>logic and common sense.
Call the logic police on yourself for that one.<g> You use your own
unfounded speculations to support your conclusion. The student you are
talking about, at the risk of sounding trite, is a retired rocket
scientist who is quite sharp and active. And the student, *again*, had
NO idea I had any information from RP until AFTER we talked in general
about the program, personal experiences there and memories from it ...
including recollections about some names I rattled off. And Judyth was
one of those names.
>
>> You and Martin made big accusations and all kinds of attacks on me
>> when I reported what I had bee told by Roswell Park ...and then
>> confirmed with a second source before posting it ... that Judyth had
>> been dismissed from Rowell Park.
>>
>> Martin rushed to the keyboard to say RP had denied it (which isn't
>> really what the e-mail he received from the Calif "researcher" said in
>> the first place) ... telling me I had "been played" and was "toast."
>> You frothed all over the place indignantly and posting that Mirand
>> should be confronted with the "documentation" she had not been
>> dismissed, but had finished the program in grand style ...and posting
>> that you had left voice messages for him and would talk to him when he
>> returned from vacation. Martin promised "details" soon.
>>
>> Sooo...what do we get?
>>
>> Now it is *JUDYTH* who confirms Mirand told researchers she had been
>> dismissed .... and we haven't heard one word from you ...
>
>Hey, I am not Martin.
It's kind of hard to tell the difference.<g>
>And this is the first time I'm writing on this
>subject. "Indignantly"? Cut me some slack. You did a great job. I never
>spoke to Mirand. But it does seem to me kind of irrelevant given that she
>went immediately into college and first thing gives a scientific paper
>based on her Roswell work. Why don't you engage her on the subject? Afraid
>you might not be able to understand her "jargon"?
I actually enjoyed her two rambling explanations ... particularly
where they, posted a mere 48 hours apart, conflict with one another
...and, of course, they conflict with what she published in her book.
I'd be delighted to engage Judyth in another discussion on the
clinical laboratory work she claims she did on the doomed
convict/mental patient in Jackson ... but we already danced that one a
couple years back ...and she lost badly. As soon as I read what she
put in her book about that, I knew she'd never done clinical lab work
... it was so bad it was hilarious. She sent someone (a nuclear med
tech) in to defend her ...and she tried admirably ...then ran what I
was saying about some lab tests Judyth had rambled about in her book,
checked with people in the lab at the hospital where she works ....
and posted an apology to me. :-) My background is clinical lab (thus
my medical terminology is quite good ...as is my understanding of cell
division and assorted other things... and I have wonderful resources
for things I need help with.). You might check with a lab ...like at
your local hospital ...and ask them how long it takes to do a sed
rate, what disease it "diagnoses" ...and how many times they do cell
counts on ***packed*** red cells.<g> There's plenty more ... sigh.
>
>or Martin,
>> for that matter. What kind of objectivity and research protocol is
>> that?
>>
>> Judyth rambled an explanation ... not unexpected.
>
>
>Judyth rambles. She gets enough trouble from me. Nobody promised us a rose
>garden.
Nobody needs to be promised a rose garden. When someone makes claims
that insert them into the JFK assassination arena and our histoy ...
all anyone wants is the truth.
Truth doesn't need rambling explanations, excuses ... or revisions.
>
>
>> So, how does her explanation comport with *all* that was learned from
>> Dr. Mirand? Are you going to post that info yourself, or wair for it
>> to filter in from somewhere else???
>
>Are you talking to me?
Since you have not posted on this subject before, and since it is not
your name in the position of the person who wrote the post I am
replying to at the beginning of my post ... "logic" and "common sense"
would tell you ...no. :-)
>
>
>> No need to be shy.You weren't when you were all over me about the
>> info. Mirand confirmed that info.
>
>Apparently he won't confirm it a second time. He thinks you are the tops,
>so why don't you ask him again. I'm now on the paper you can't even
>understand the abstract of.
Paper trained, are you? <g>
>
>> ?If Mirand had said she was dismissed but somehow stayed in the
>> program anyway, finished as a star presenting a great paper and had
>> awards and a scholarship from the NSF heaped upon her ... do you
>> really think anyone believes that you and Martin wouldn't have been
>> melting your keyboards to get that information posted?
>
>You are right. But he never responded to me or anyone I hang with. He also
>has not reconfirmed to you, has he? Perhaps it is because the nonexistent
>record seen by Johnson doesn't contain the info he "remembers." Maybe he
>is shy over issues related to the assassination. I know I didn't mention
>JFK. Did you?
When I contacted Roswell Park, I didn't even mention Judyth's name
initially ...why the heck would I mention JFK? :-)
>
>> Post *all* the info from the conversation with Mirand.
>
>I thought I said I never spoke to him.
>
>> Now THAT would be a breath of fresh air.
>
>Wow - you ignored about 75% of what I wrote. Why not just accept the
>compliment and join us?
Since you are replying to a post written by Pamela ... how do you
figure I ignored you on anything??? I didn't reply to your initial
post here at all. But I did ratjer enjoy reading it. :-)
>Please dig into other things I may have taken at face value. (My initial
>intention was simply to help the lady write her memoirs and give people a
>chance to judge for themselves. Liebengood told CBS she deserved a
>"platform," at least based on his research.)
Ahhh, so you didn't really care about the veracity, just the telling.
More a ghost writer or technical writing support than anything to do
with content, eh?
>
>If you can find out about the human use license at Florida, that would be
>great. The way Judyth tells it, the self-created license was used to evade
>government red tape. It may well be so secret (ethically questionable)
>that they would deny it ever existed, It's possible, you know You really
>shouldn't be expecting confirmation from people who might not want to
>cripple their reputations by association with SV40 (RP) (see Haslam),
>low-profile radiation work (UF) or JFK.
Just like, according to Judyth, the Reily people had been "warned"
about her, so of course they told me the green glass was a one time
promotion in 1959-1960, and not in 1963.
Of course, I never mentioned Judyth when I asked about the green
glass.<g>
"The way Judyth tells it" is pretty much all we have had for years.
Now we're seeing some things that have been able to be confirmed ...
or denied. .
You're kinda fun.
And, thank you. :-) At least you addressed the question Pam is
avoiding at all costs.
Bests,
Barb :-)
>
>H
Anthony Marsh
>> It's a pity that no one bothered to do any serious fact checking before
>> her book was published.
>
> But it in just looking for dirt to do fact checking now, eh, Tony?
>
You didn't look for her letter to President Kennedy. You are only
looking to dig up dirt.
Barb Junkkarinen
>On May 1, 11:54 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On May 1, 10:52?pm, kbs88...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 30, 10:16?pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
You and Anthony are the only ones stuck on digging up dirt. Not my
problem ... nor anyone else's. I have been posting what I find on
assorted claims that can be documented ... whether confirmation or
denial.
What I have been doing is reflected in my posts. Just like what you do
is reflected in yours.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Any chance you'll ever stop making claims you cannot back up? Of
course not!
My posts reflect what I have been doing .. why ... and the results.
It's not lost on most.
paul seaton
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bac3f029-ba63-4770...@j9g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>the get-Castro, undercover-medical community
Do we now have labels for all possible social sub-groups ? :-) the overt -
psychiatric - horticultural community ? the Wear Pyjamas & Bolivian Hat
while singing Schubert on a small boat community ?
Before we get carried away, just what evidence exists for the numerical
extent of this putative band of brigands, the ' get-Castro,
undercover-medical community '?
I mean, I know about the powder in the skuba suit caper, and something
about LSD all over his cigar ..can't think of more. I wonder what kind of
lifestyles these CIA funded research medics lived ? You have to admit,
you'd be surprised if you found they were doing it as a night job in some
dude's kitchen while they spent the days serving hamburgers to keep the
wolf from the door. I mean, think of the GDP of the USA and then work out
how much the USA could afford to pay helpful scientific nerds & beat-nik
wierdos ... & Uncle Sam just couldn't get sandwiches to it's prize
bio-weaponeer ?
Well, I thought better of them.
howardp
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is AMAZING, really. For a number of reasons, Judyth has made few
converts. So why does she attract so much attention, one wonders? You all
treat Judyth as if it was like shooting fish in a bottle. So why DO you go
on? Is it a kind of sadism? Is this truly worth your time?
John McAdams
>On May 2, 10:35 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Dave Reitzes wrote:
>> > On May 1, 10:52?pm, kbs88...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> On Apr 30, 10:16?pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Barb is doing a terrific job. It's a pity no one bothered to do any
>>
>> Barb's only goal is to dig up dirt.
>>
>> > serious research into Judyth's background BEFORE the History Channel ran
>>
>> It's a pity that no one bothered to do any serious fact checking before
>> her book was published. It's a pity that 99.99% of the bandwidth here is
>> wasted on attacking Judyth.
>>
>>
>
>It is AMAZING, really. For a number of reasons, Judyth has made few
>converts. So why does she attract so much attention, one wonders? You all
>treat Judyth as if it was like shooting fish in a bottle. So why DO you go
>on? Is it a kind of sadism? Is this truly worth your time?
It's the amazing chutzpah of the Judyth supporters.
It's as though you all have a "kick me" sign on your behinds.
Except, you put it there yourselves!
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
howardp
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're almost as good as the Warren Commission, Barb.
howardp
> attempting to reduce the informer to one of minor significance in actually
> knowing anything. Barb gave ample opportunuty for someone who did know
> (Mirand) to recant and he did not do so, which is quite clear, from even
> Judyth's latest account.
>
> I have no idea of how or when this is all going to end, but it certainly
> has consumed us for many years now.....possibly too many years!
>
> Dixie
You write a thoughtful post and deserve a more extended response than I
have time to give now. The problem with Barb is not her "digging"; it is
her analysis. I don't think she ever expected to get to the point where
Judyth is lone presenter of a paper based on her work on melanoma at
Roswell Park. She only has to take this dirt a couple of more steps and
she will have shown it likely that Judyth's story is NOT easily dismissed,
howevermuch one likes her demeanor or her book. The fact is, Barb is
getting nowhere fast. If you want "proof," where is the proof that the
Gulf of Tonkin incident happened? This is not a courtroom and it would be
ridiculous to ask for proof of the plot, much less her role in it, to come
in the form of physical evidence -- a key document or the likely. Throwing
around words like "proof" is a dangerously misguided business when the
word has different meanings in different contexts and there are varying
standards we use in life to generate our opinions pro and con --
(1) gut feeling,
(2) best explanation given the totality of the evidence
(3) preponderance of the evidence
(4) beyond a reasonable doubt
(5) beyond the shadow of a doubt
(6) moral certainty
(7) mathematical certainty
As you note, gut feeling doesn't cut it. But best explanation is a damned
good showing. For those who want more, including me, keep your eyes on
Barbara's research. She is now in the process of taking us to the next
step, whether she realizes it or not.
H
John McAdams
>> has discovered. ?Barb, is willing to put her time and effort into checking
>> out claims, which I don't feel warrants the hostility and redicule that
>> she has received from the Judyth supporters.....irregardless of how much
>> it seems to upset them. Do we not deserve the truth? With no proof for all
>> the claims, we are never going to know the truth, unless someone does as
>> Barb, is attempting to do.
>>
>> Many times I have stated that I have never believed Judyth's claims, from
>> when I first read about her, by Amy Goodwin, at Salon.com. Somehow it just
>> made my own built-in BS detector rise sky-high. Was that fair of me?
>> Probably not, and I will admit that. But sometimes, we just seem to
>> believe something or we don't. All the years with Judyth on the various
>> forums, I never changed my initial opinion. However, when her book was
>> finally published, I actualy ordered it immediately. I also made a
>> decision to attempt to read it with an open mind, which I did not
>> previously have. I also beliieved I was going to finally see all the
>> promised documnetaion that would prove her claims. ?Throughout her book, I
Barb has turned up some lies and key omissions in the Judyth story.
If you are crowing about the fact that she really did present a paper,
that only proves what all of us have said from point zero -- she was a
good science student.
I'm afraid that doesn't get you very far.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
>On May 2, 2:17?pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1 May 2008 22:52:29 -0400, kbs88...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 30, 10:16?pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
Nah...you've got that shoe on the wrong feet. I jsut want to know what
can be confirmed or denied. The WC needed to confirm LHO was a lone
deranger ...and they considered evidence in that light.
I don't care which way the chips fall on Judyth's claims ... I just
want some documentation, confirmed or denied, for claims that can be
verified one way or the other.
It's Team Judyth who have the WC methodology down. And, sadly, pretty
well. Too damn well. Anything that doesn't fit with Judyth ... is out,
kaput, "rumour" or "gossip" or "mudslinging" or "unverified claims"
(that one a particular hoot given what has been lobbed up and called
evidence, documentation and proof by Team Judyth.
You seem to be a bit of a different breed, though ... you've made a
few comments rare in the typical Judyth-speak world.
Barb :-)
Michael O'Dell
Barb wrote: "...and amongst the scientific jargon, it notes that..."
To which Howard responded: "------You didn't understand the "scientific
jargon"? Was it too complicated for you, who have billed yourself in the
past as a whiz adult on things medical?"
Using the term "scientific jargon" as she did, in no way implies an
inability to understand the jargon. It only implies the jargon isn't
relevant to her point, so she didn't bother to go into it.
This is a pretty pathetic way to attack someone.
Michael
"howardp" <ho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d612a175-b2dd-4ebd...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
------Wrong.
QUOTE
------She didn't see a program. Maybe she was otherwise occupied. I
have a copy of the Roswell Park summer program brochure and the
Science Fair program, if you're a program buff. I too find it hard to
believe that there was no program, but, for whatever reason, she did
not come away with one.
------Once again, I call upon the Logic Police: this is what is called
"beside the point." You have already conceded that she appeared as a
presenter. You don't get to go back and declare it evidence against
her authenticity that she can't produce a conference brochure when you
already admit she gave a paper at the conference!!
------If you knew her, it would not "stretch credulity" that she could
lose sight of such details. Ever hear of the "absent-minded
professor"? At 17, she was well on her way. I am sorrier than you are
that she can turn a corner and get lost. On a more balanced view, it
should be even more remarkable that she was able to remember one
percent of the details she has. You're about as fair and balanced as
Fox News.
------And in the end, she always seems to get where she is headed,
sometimes depending on the kindness of friends and strangers who
escort her and keep her from getting too lost. This jibes completely
with the Judyth I know.
But she ran with Indiana Biological Association for all these years...
and what that did was make it almost impossible to fact check
-----If you knew her, you would know that this is who she is. She runs
with -- or past -- things she considers settled or secondary, whether
they are or are not settled or secondary. That is one reason I blew up
over her book. Her headlong approach to life isn’t entirely without
merit. It also explains how she evolved as a cancer researcher from
inducing cancer in mice at age 16 in high school, to strengthening
cancer cells at age 17 at Roswell Park, to tracking cancer cells at
age 18 in Gainesville, to weaponizing cancer cells at age 19-20 in New
Orleans.
------You have taken us to age 17 1/2 -- showing, you maintain, a
pattern of failure -- and yet, despite her many failures, as
characterized by you, she is giving technical papers on melanoma that
you can only describe as jargon?!! I bet some people in the audience
understood.
and discover that, once again ... just like Roswell Park, the green
glass,the Russian class (and other things as we shall see), a grain of
truth has been inflated and embellished beyong recognition ... all,
seemingly, for the drama, to point out how special and important she
was ... and to make it a credible (Judyth thinks) stepping stone
culminating in her ultimate glory in Ferrie's kitchen.
------And yet, despite her repeated failures, she somehow gets closer
and closer to a time and place at which a secret plot could be hatched
in which she could, by virtue of her special training, play a major
role. I seem to recall people saying not long ago that she knew
nothing about science and may have been, at most, a lab technician.
The deeper you dig, Barb, the higher the expectation that her
adventure would stop. But it doesn't. If she got expelled from
Roswell, as you claim, it sure wasn't for lack of talent. In the fall,
she was given a 2nd NSF grant and a grant from the American Cancer
Society. Ochsner was still taking good care of her.
So, now, I guess I best don my helmet and flak jacket ... and prepare
for more incoming from Martin and Pamela on my distortions, vague and
cherry picked information, "pseudo" verification, tilting at
windmills, lack of any real research, etc.
------On the contrary, you have done a fine job. I bet at the start of
this crusade of yours, that you never expected that she could have
written, or even co-written, a paper on melanoma at the age of 17.
Keep going, Barb, but I will say to you what I have said (often in
vain) to her: watch the speculations and inferences. There is such a
thing as trying too hard.
Heck, they can't possibly latch onto my confirming Judyth did present
a paper that Fall ... this documentation is no different than ones I
have sought out and presented on other topics
------Watch this space for more on Roswell Park.
------As for the green glass, she never lived in New Orleans in any
year other than 1963. Find her there any other year and you win a
prize. I don't know where or when you think she got her hands on the
glass, or even found out that Reily gave away such glasses, but I'm
sure you will make up something incoherent. For what it's worth, her
children became aware of it 28 years ago. When do you think she
started planning this hoax? 1961? 1963? 1980? Nothing beats tying your
destiny to one of the most hated men in history. With that as a goal,
you can hardly get too soon a start.
------I'm glad you're chopping away at the underbrush -- and dig you
must -- but you seem lost in the trees: there is the forest to be
considered. You are drawing conclusions that make no sense. That this
is so is evident from the fact that each time it seems you've caught
her out, her life takes her to the next step anyway, as if she were
telling the truth -- and you are forced to trail along! Her sins, as
you recite them, do not slow her down. They never quite catch up with
her. They are as if they never occurred. They are as if the product of
others’ lapses in memory or your own lapses in reasoning. The way she
keeps on going, the lady must be the Eveready Bunny. Or a magician,
because she sure has the magic touch. Keep on researching. The way
things are going for you, pretty soon you will discover that she was
the first woman president of the United States. (- :
.. so how could they! But, of course, if they do (and of course they
will!) ... they also have to accept the information from the same
source that relates there was nothing unique about a student
presenting at one of their meetings. A co-presenter.
No need for a motorcade of nun doctors to vouch for her. And on and
on. This was easy to find once I had the Indiana Academy of Science.
Looking for the Indiana Biological Association it wasn't possible to
find out if a paper was presented at all ... let alone that there was
a co-presenter, that she wasn't the first/only student to present, and
on and on.
All these years her supporters yukking up the Indiana Biological
Association and the rest of the tale. Obviously, no one made the least
little effort to fact check any of it.
Indiana Biological Association: SOLVED
Reality not quite matching the story: TYPICAL.
Maybe I'd better put on my boots too.....
Barb :-)
Michael O'Dell
> >> On Apr 30, 10:16?pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
------------------------
Why do people still debate who Jack the Ripper was? There are worse
hobbies.
Orchid growing, now that I don't get. But if it keeps you off the
streets, why not?
Michael
Michael O'Dell
> out claims, which I don't feel warrants the hostility and redicule that
> she has received from the Judyth supporters.....irregardless of how much
> it seems to upset them. Do we not deserve the truth? With no proof for all
> the claims, we are never going to know the truth, unless someone does as
> Barb, is attempting to do.
>
> Many times I have stated that I have never believed Judyth's claims, from
> when I first read about her, by Amy Goodwin, at Salon.com. Somehow it just
> made my own built-in BS detector rise sky-high. Was that fair of me?
> Probably not, and I will admit that. But sometimes, we just seem to
> believe something or we don't. All the years with Judyth on the various
> forums, I never changed my initial opinion. However, when her book was
> finally published, I actualy ordered it immediately. I also made a
> decision to attempt to read it with an open mind, which I did not
> previously have. I also beliieved I was going to finally see all the
H
-------------------
OK. For you to know that, you must have already done it. Right?
Michael
Michael O'Dell
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:M72dnbkdmqlJhobV...@comcast.com...
Now Tony, I was hoping you'd stop tarnishing your image by make such silly
statements.
Barb's motive doesn't matter. The truth matters. If her sole motive was
to dig up dirt, the dirt would still have to be there to be dug up. What
matters is if the dirt exists, not the motivation of the person who finds
it.
One would hope that you could see facts for facts, instead of viewing
everything through the distortion of who you like or dislike. Oh well.
I'm sure most people can see that.
Michael
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>Since Barb didn't point this out, I will.
>
>Barb wrote: "...and amongst the scientific jargon, it notes that..."
>
>To which Howard responded: "------You didn't understand the "scientific
>jargon"? Was it too complicated for you, who have billed yourself in the
>past as a whiz adult on things medical?"
>
>Using the term "scientific jargon" as she did, in no way implies an
>inability to understand the jargon. It only implies the jargon isn't
>relevant to her point, so she didn't bother to go into it.
You got it....as did most, I would expect.
>
>This is a pretty pathetic way to attack someone.
Are we surprised?
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
Her motive does matter. If there are 100 points, she looks into only those
points where she can dig up dirt and reports that 100% of the points she
checked out are bogus, but that could be only 35 of the 100 points.
I said 87%, but she says 100% because of biased sampling.
> One would hope that you could see facts for facts, instead of viewing
> everything through the distortion of who you like or dislike. Oh well.
> I'm sure most people can see that.
>
Then why is it that I agree so many times with WC defenders that I
detest that the wackiest conspiracy believers call me a WC defender?
> Michael
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Why are WC defenders so obsessed with Judyth?
Because they can not argue the facts. Their only available tactic is to
call conspiracy believers kooks. They really believe that if they attack
the credibility of sources that alone proves there was no conspiracy.
Scientific evidence does not interest them.
> Michael
>
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
>On May 2, 10:35 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Dave Reitzes wrote:
>> > On May 1, 10:52?pm, kbs88...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> On Apr 30, 10:16?pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
Supposedly, we're all involved in this arena in the first place
because we care about the truth of the JFK assassination ... and an
accurate history.
Yours seems a rather silly question.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
One would expect. :-)
Is it just me, Michael, or does Howard seem to be more interested in
dissuading people from looking at Judyth's claims very carefully than
he is interested in what things have been posted so far that have been
able to be confirmed or denied ... documentably?
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>> has discovered. ?Barb, is willing to put her time and effort into checking
>> out claims, which I don't feel warrants the hostility and redicule that
>> she has received from the Judyth supporters.....irregardless of how much
>> it seems to upset them. Do we not deserve the truth? With no proof for all
>> the claims, we are never going to know the truth, unless someone does as
>> Barb, is attempting to do.
>>
>> Many times I have stated that I have never believed Judyth's claims, from
>> when I first read about her, by Amy Goodwin, at Salon.com. Somehow it just
>> made my own built-in BS detector rise sky-high. Was that fair of me?
>> Probably not, and I will admit that. But sometimes, we just seem to
>> believe something or we don't. All the years with Judyth on the various
>> forums, I never changed my initial opinion. However, when her book was
>> finally published, I actualy ordered it immediately. I also made a
>> decision to attempt to read it with an open mind, which I did not
>> previously have. I also beliieved I was going to finally see all the
>> promised documnetaion that would prove her claims. ?Throughout her book, I
ACHOO! Sorry, allergic to straw.
I have been doing some fact checking, looking to see which of Judyth's
claims can be confirmed or denied ... and documented as such.
And I have been posting those things ... in full.
They speak for themselves, imo.
What anyone chooses to discuss or believe is their decision. Like
everyone else, I am entitled to my opinions.
No "analysis" by me ... OR you ... or speculation from anyone changes
the facts that have been found. What someone chooses to discuss,
"analyze" or speculate or consider the possibilities of about those
facts is up to each individual ... and that's one reason people post
to a newsgroup. Duh.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
BS. As usual.
Tell me, Anthony ... as regards Judyth's calim that a Russian class
was created FOR her, by conservatibe retired military officers, who
hired an instructor and got the class started at Manatee Junior
College .. beginning in the Spring se,ester of 1960 .... other than
rearch and document that there was a Russian class, when it started
and who taught it, and that Judyth probably took it ...just what other
"points" do you, oh great researcher, say should have been covered in
an effort to confirm or deny THAT claim?
Her claims are many. Her evidence and documentation are sorely
lacking. Each claim has to be checked out individually.
>
>I said 87%, but she says 100% because of biased sampling.
You picked a number out of your sock and applied it to her story
overall. I have been working to confirm or deny individual claims that
CAN be researched and documented. Not all of her claims can be.
And since you choose to be blind to it, but others are not ... your WC
defender crap looks really ridiculous. This is not a CT vs LN issue.
This is a matyter of established just what and what is not factual
truth in her story. And you seem hell bent on disrupting and diverting
those efforts and discussions that come from it.
Michael O'Dell
More silliness from Tony.
So you think belief in conspiracy depends on Judyth? Or is it that any
criticism of any conspiracy story is out of bounds?
In that case, what about when you criticize Z film alterationists? I guess
that really does make you a WC defender, just like the nuts in the nuthouse
accuse you of. After all, you're using exactly the same logic.
Michael
Barb Junkkarinen
paul seaton
"Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:481cd358$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Michael, I think most of us who read Tony's posts realised a long time ago
that Tony's logic is under the distinct influence of his hatred of the CIA
- or at least some subset thereof.
His opinions become much more comprehensible - in fact, almost 100%
predictable - when viewed in that light. Initailly I couldn't understand
why he was so involved in a discussion of someone (JVB) - in a defencive
capacity - whose story he avowedly believes is 87 % crap. The reason, i
have devined, is that almost any discussion on this ng is rich hunting
grounds for Tony, because they nearly all involve the genus 'WC Defender',
who by implication think Tony's 'I hate the CIA therefore they killed JFK'
theory is seriously flawed.
Any thread here is a good place to find absolute HERDS of the enemy. If he
can't get you on your citations, he'll get you on your spelling mistakes.
Either way, he'll get you.
So.. trying to get a stranglehold on Tony by resorting to mere *logic* is
pointless.
paul s
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
>Anthony said.....
>
>Barb's only goal is to dig up dirt.
>
>It's a pity that no one bothered to do any serious fact checking before
>her book was published. It's a pity that 99.99% of the bandwidth here is
>wasted on attacking Judyth.
>
>__________________________________
>
>Barb's only goal is in one thing and that is in learning, the
>truth.....just as most of us want to know. There is no dirt digging going
>on. No one has attempted to try and find out anything scandulous about
>Judyth to do with her own personal life....that is not of any importance
>to us. No one has attempted to go beyond what she herself has claimed.
>But, when someone has made extroadinary claims regarding their past life
>and goes so far as to write a book about it, then extroadinary proof is
>required, to go along with it.
>
>After all, these claims involve a tragedy in our history that is of utmost
>importance to us, particulary those of us, who attempt to study the JFK
>Assassination. It also involves the accusation of Lee Harvey Oswald as
>JFK's assassin. Some here, do believe he was guilty and others of us do
>not believe that he was. Judyth claims to have played a role in LHO's life
>before the assassination. I do believe we need to know if her claims are
>true or not.
>
>If she had written a fictional book, no one would care to try and dig
>deeper for the truth. It would just merely be a good story. But, that has
>not been the case and her claims were told as though true. Most of us
>cannot just take someones word on such claims. We need to know whether the
>claims are actually true or just fantasy.
>
>It is my strong belief, that if Barb discovered a claim to be true, she
>would disclose that fact, just as she will disclose any descrepencis she
>has discovered. Barb, is willing to put her time and effort into checking
>out claims, which I don't feel warrants the hostility and redicule that
>she has received from the Judyth supporters.....irregardless of how much
>it seems to upset them. Do we not deserve the truth? With no proof for all
>the claims, we are never going to know the truth, unless someone does as
>Barb, is attempting to do.
>
>Many times I have stated that I have never believed Judyth's claims, from
>when I first read about her, by Amy Goodwin, at Salon.com. Somehow it just
>made my own built-in BS detector rise sky-high. Was that fair of me?
>Probably not, and I will admit that. But sometimes, we just seem to
>believe something or we don't. All the years with Judyth on the various
>forums, I never changed my initial opinion. However, when her book was
>finally published, I actualy ordered it immediately. I also made a
>decision to attempt to read it with an open mind, which I did not
>previously have. I also beliieved I was going to finally see all the
>promised documnetaion that would prove her claims. Throughout her book, I
Thank you, Dixie ... not just for your very kind remarks about me, but
for such a well thought out and well stated post. I find your opinions
very insightful.
Bests to you!
Barb :-)
>
Anthony Marsh
>
> <jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bac3f029-ba63-4770...@j9g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> the get-Castro, undercover-medical community
>
>
> Do we now have labels for all possible social sub-groups ? :-) the overt
> - psychiatric - horticultural community ? the Wear Pyjamas & Bolivian
> Hat while singing Schubert on a small boat community ?
>
So, your understanding is that no one in the medical profession was
participating in the CIA's assassination plots against Castro?
Then obviously you have never heard of Sidney Gottlieb or researched the
Castro plots. Which make me wonder why you are discussing this issue and
making pronouncements instead of asking newbie questions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Gottlieb
> Before we get carried away, just what evidence exists for the numerical
> extent of this putative band of brigands, the ' get-Castro,
> undercover-medical community '?
>
> I mean, I know about the powder in the skuba suit caper, and something
> about LSD all over his cigar ..can't think of more. I wonder what kind
> of lifestyles these CIA funded research medics lived ? You have to
Oh, you mean a weirdo like Sidney Gottlieb? Or maybe you are thinking of
William Harvey.
> admit, you'd be surprised if you found they were doing it as a night job
> in some dude's kitchen while they spent the days serving hamburgers to
> keep the wolf from the door. I mean, think of the GDP of the USA and
You seem to be trying to attack Judyth, but you distort the bit about
working at a burger joint. Her claim about working at a burger joint was
only for a very brief time and did not span the time she claimed to be
working in a bioweapons lab. Just because her claims are ridiculous does
not give you license to misrepresent what those claims are.
> then work out how much the USA could afford to pay helpful scientific
> nerds & beat-nik wierdos ... & Uncle Sam just couldn't get sandwiches to
> it's prize bio-weaponeer ?
>
Well, it is a fact that the USA repeatedly tried to assassinate Fidel
Castro. So please tell us exactly which top scientists and doctors
(beyond Sidney Gottlieb) and document the people you name.
Anthony Marsh
I back them up every day.
> My posts reflect what I have been doing .. why ... and the results.
>
Your pattern of posts proves my point. 99.99% are attacks on Judyth.
Anthony Marsh
> On 2 May 2008 19:18:45 -0400, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On May 1, 11:54 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On May 1, 10:52?pm, kbs88...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 30, 10:16?pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
>>> serious research into Judyth's background BEFORE the History Channel ran
>>> shelled out fifty bucks for her book.
>>>
>> the current process with a witness to simply accept what they say and move
>> forward with it. The episode of the "Smoking Guns" runs the story of
>> Weldon's mystery witness. I provided Weldon with research that I had done
>> at the Henry Ford Museum as well as all my documentation on Vaughn
>> Ferguson, but they decided to dismiss that and run with Whittaker's
>> statements. That is a current 'process' and some researchers refuse to do
>> anything else.
>>
>> Ironically, it seems to me Judyth's statements gain strength when given
>> additional research and documentation, as well as when they are oriented
>> in the get-Castro, undercover-medical community in NOLA in 1963. Barb's
>> contributions in bringing forth information may long outlive her attempts
>> to simply dig up dirt on Judyth.
>
> You and Anthony are the only ones stuck on digging up dirt. Not my
> problem ... nor anyone else's. I have been posting what I find on
> assorted claims that can be documented ... whether confirmation or
> denial.
>
You didn't even try to document her letter to President Kennedy. Guess
there was no dirt there.
> What I have been doing is reflected in my posts. Just like what you do
> is reflected in yours.
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> On 2 May 2008 19:31:28 -0400, howardp <ho...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 30, 12:25?am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> On 29 Apr 2008 22:32:59 -0400, jfk2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> [.....]
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Howard. ?A welcome breath of fresh air after the thrashing of
>>>> Barb's heavy mudslinging. ?Do you think she's ready to go back to square
>>>> one and start with an objective approach toward Judyth? Unlikely as that
>>>> possibility might seem, it would be much more efficient and productive
>>>> than the frantic attempts to make something, anything, stick that have, as
>>>> you pointed out, backfired magnificently.
>>> If I wasn't objective in the way I am going about seeking verification
>>> of Judyth's claims ... and in presenting all the facts and
>>> circumstances that I find ... there would be no confirmation that
>>> Judyth ever presented a paper anywhere.
>> YES, YOU ARE RIGHT! I TOLD YOU ALREADY: WELCOME TO TEAM JUDYTH. You are
>> the best researcher we ever had.
>>
>>
>>> I could have stopped when I'd exhausted the possibilities for finding
>>> that the IBA ever existed ...
>> No you could not have stopped. Because of what you found out later, that
>> the IBA, whether it exists or not, was not the issue. Barely out of high
>> school, she gave a paper to a Senior Academy on melanoma, the same paper
>> that she gave at Roswell.
>>
>> which according to state records and
>>> multiple university biology departments .. it did not, Or, when I got
>>> the info from the Academy of Science, I could have sat on that part of
>>> it and not disclosed what I had discovered.
>> Again, I am thrilled that you kept digging.
>>
>>
>>> I don't operate that way.
>> Good. There is no sarcasm here at all. Good.
>>
>>> Perhaps you do? Or can we expect you to finally report on your
>>> conversation with Mirand?
>> I never spoke to Mirand, but I asked questions he refused to answer. When
>> asked if your report was the official position of RP, I got no response.
>> Nor did others who asked. Since he and Moore are the only ones alive from
>> 1961, and Moore is on his deathbed with no memory at all, it comes down to
>> Mirand. Or does it? She went on to the next step anyway. You're saying you
>> can ethically let it stand over a housing violation supposedly incurred in
>> the last week of the program. Oh no, you can't let it stand there.
>
> Nothing about a "housing violatioon" or the ramble that follwed
> "stands" for anything ... or are you another "researcher" who think
> letting a claimant self-verify their claims (or their own excuses and
> explanations) is some sort of valid protocol?
And yet you were the one who self-verified her claims about Judyth.
>> Moreover, when asked to confirm that Moore was her sponsor and that her
>> work was exemplary, he wouldn't confirm or deny either. Now, we already
>> know she worked with Moore. So I can presume from the course her life
>> CONTINUED ON after RP that whatever happened there did not sour anyone on
>> her skills.
>
> So sayeth Judyth.
>> By the way: Roswell supposedly told you that it had no records from that
>> era
>
> Nobody told me any such thing, nor did I ever say they did. That would
> be Martin, as I recall.
>
>> and yet Craig Johnson, the current head of the summer program, managed
>> to produce a record on Judyth.
>
> Yes ... one that shows no award or scholarship made and reflects her
> only having received $250 in stipend while there. That doesn't cover 8
> weeks at the $150/mo Judyth claims ... only covers 5 weeks of the
> $200/mo two students I have been in contact with independently state
> was the amount of the stipend they received.
>
>> Isn't this a contradiction? Do I have to
>> call in the logic police again?
>
> Someone to sweep up your straw might be a better idea. :-)
>
>> Mirand is an old man who has been asked to
>> recall the nature of a student's violation 45 years ago. I tend to doubt
>> he would send her home on such a flimsy basis with the end of the term so
>> near.
>
> According to Judyth it was close to the end ... in her book, she
> relates Mirand being very angry with her over where she was living AT
> THE BEGINNING of the program.
>
> Ask Judyth about it ... I'm sure she'll have no problem explaining her
> contradictions. She never does. ;-)
>
>> I tend to believe, also, that his memory of just another student (no
>> genius, of course) may not be entirely intact. Then again, this is just
>> logic and common sense.
>
> Call the logic police on yourself for that one.<g> You use your own
> unfounded speculations to support your conclusion. The student you are
> talking about, at the risk of sounding trite, is a retired rocket
> scientist who is quite sharp and active. And the student, *again*, had
> NO idea I had any information from RP until AFTER we talked in general
> about the program, personal experiences there and memories from it ...
> including recollections about some names I rattled off. And Judyth was
> one of those names.
>>> You and Martin made big accusations and all kinds of attacks on me
>>> when I reported what I had bee told by Roswell Park ...and then
>>> confirmed with a second source before posting it ... that Judyth had
>>> been dismissed from Rowell Park.
>>>
>>> Martin rushed to the keyboard to say RP had denied it (which isn't
>>> really what the e-mail he received from the Calif "researcher" said in
>>> the first place) ... telling me I had "been played" and was "toast."
>>> You frothed all over the place indignantly and posting that Mirand
>>> should be confronted with the "documentation" she had not been
>>> dismissed, but had finished the program in grand style ...and posting
>>> that you had left voice messages for him and would talk to him when he
>>> returned from vacation. Martin promised "details" soon.
>>>
>>> Sooo...what do we get?
>>>
>>> Now it is *JUDYTH* who confirms Mirand told researchers she had been
>>> dismissed .... and we haven't heard one word from you ...
>> Hey, I am not Martin.
>
> It's kind of hard to tell the difference.<g>
>
>> And this is the first time I'm writing on this
>> subject. "Indignantly"? Cut me some slack. You did a great job. I never
>> spoke to Mirand. But it does seem to me kind of irrelevant given that she
>> went immediately into college and first thing gives a scientific paper
>> based on her Roswell work. Why don't you engage her on the subject? Afraid
>> you might not be able to understand her "jargon"?
>
> I actually enjoyed her two rambling explanations ... particularly
> where they, posted a mere 48 hours apart, conflict with one another
> ...and, of course, they conflict with what she published in her book.
>
> I'd be delighted to engage Judyth in another discussion on the
> clinical laboratory work she claims she did on the doomed
> convict/mental patient in Jackson ... but we already danced that one a
> couple years back ...and she lost badly. As soon as I read what she
> put in her book about that, I knew she'd never done clinical lab work
> ... it was so bad it was hilarious. She sent someone (a nuclear med
> tech) in to defend her ...and she tried admirably ...then ran what I
> was saying about some lab tests Judyth had rambled about in her book,
> checked with people in the lab at the hospital where she works ....
> and posted an apology to me. :-) My background is clinical lab (thus
> my medical terminology is quite good ...as is my understanding of cell
> division and assorted other things... and I have wonderful resources
> for things I need help with.). You might check with a lab ...like at
> your local hospital ...and ask them how long it takes to do a sed
> rate, what disease it "diagnoses" ...and how many times they do cell
> counts on ***packed*** red cells.<g> There's plenty more ... sigh.
>> or Martin,
>>> for that matter. What kind of objectivity and research protocol is
>>> that?
>>>
>>> Judyth rambled an explanation ... not unexpected.
>>
>> Judyth rambles. She gets enough trouble from me. Nobody promised us a rose
>> garden.
>
> Nobody needs to be promised a rose garden. When someone makes claims
> that insert them into the JFK assassination arena and our histoy ...
> all anyone wants is the truth.
>
> Truth doesn't need rambling explanations, excuses ... or revisions.
>>
>>> So, how does her explanation comport with *all* that was learned from
>>> Dr. Mirand? Are you going to post that info yourself, or wair for it
>>> to filter in from somewhere else???
>> Are you talking to me?
>
> Since you have not posted on this subject before, and since it is not
> your name in the position of the person who wrote the post I am
> replying to at the beginning of my post ... "logic" and "common sense"
> would tell you ...no. :-)
>>
>>> No need to be shy.You weren't when you were all over me about the
>>> info. Mirand confirmed that info.
>> Apparently he won't confirm it a second time. He thinks you are the tops,
>> so why don't you ask him again. I'm now on the paper you can't even
>> understand the abstract of.
>
> Paper trained, are you? <g>
>>> ?If Mirand had said she was dismissed but somehow stayed in the
>>> program anyway, finished as a star presenting a great paper and had
>>> awards and a scholarship from the NSF heaped upon her ... do you
>>> really think anyone believes that you and Martin wouldn't have been
>>> melting your keyboards to get that information posted?
>> You are right. But he never responded to me or anyone I hang with. He also
>> has not reconfirmed to you, has he? Perhaps it is because the nonexistent
>> record seen by Johnson doesn't contain the info he "remembers." Maybe he
>> is shy over issues related to the assassination. I know I didn't mention
>> JFK. Did you?
>
> When I contacted Roswell Park, I didn't even mention Judyth's name
> initially ...why the heck would I mention JFK? :-)
>>> Post *all* the info from the conversation with Mirand.
>> I thought I said I never spoke to him.
>>
>>> Now THAT would be a breath of fresh air.
>> Wow - you ignored about 75% of what I wrote. Why not just accept the
>> compliment and join us?
>
> Since you are replying to a post written by Pamela ... how do you
> figure I ignored you on anything??? I didn't reply to your initial
> post here at all. But I did ratjer enjoy reading it. :-)
>
>
>> Please dig into other things I may have taken at face value. (My initial
>> intention was simply to help the lady write her memoirs and give people a
>> chance to judge for themselves. Liebengood told CBS she deserved a
>> "platform," at least based on his research.)
>
> Ahhh, so you didn't really care about the veracity, just the telling.
> More a ghost writer or technical writing support than anything to do
> with content, eh?
>> If you can find out about the human use license at Florida, that would be
>> great. The way Judyth tells it, the self-created license was used to evade
>> government red tape. It may well be so secret (ethically questionable)
>> that they would deny it ever existed, It's possible, you know You really
>> shouldn't be expecting confirmation from people who might not want to
>> cripple their reputations by association with SV40 (RP) (see Haslam),
>> low-profile radiation work (UF) or JFK.
>
> Just like, according to Judyth, the Reily people had been "warned"
> about her, so of course they told me the green glass was a one time
> promotion in 1959-1960, and not in 1963.
>
> Of course, I never mentioned Judyth when I asked about the green
> glass.<g>
>
> "The way Judyth tells it" is pretty much all we have had for years.
> Now we're seeing some things that have been able to be confirmed ...
> or denied. .
>
> You're kinda fun.
>
> And, thank you. :-) At least you addressed the question Pam is
> avoiding at all costs.
>
> Bests,
> Barb :-)
>> H
>
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony said.....
>
> Barb's only goal is to dig up dirt.
>
> It's a pity that no one bothered to do any serious fact checking before
> her book was published. It's a pity that 99.99% of the bandwidth here is
> wasted on attacking Judyth.
>
> __________________________________
>
> Barb's only goal is in one thing and that is in learning, the
> truth.....just as most of us want to know. There is no dirt digging going
> on. No one has attempted to try and find out anything scandulous about
> Judyth to do with her own personal life....that is not of any importance
> to us. No one has attempted to go beyond what she herself has claimed.
> But, when someone has made extroadinary claims regarding their past life
> and goes so far as to write a book about it, then extroadinary proof is
> required, to go along with it.
>
Barb did not attempt to dig up proof of Judyth's extraordinary claims.
No one did. Barb tried to dig up dirt to attack Judyth. As long as you
are a WC defender you think that is an acceptable tactic.
> After all, these claims involve a tragedy in our history that is of utmost
> importance to us, particulary those of us, who attempt to study the JFK
> Assassination. It also involves the accusation of Lee Harvey Oswald as
As I explained before, Judyth's claims were so bizarre that I immediately
dismissed them and do not think ANYONE should waste even a millisecond
taking them seriously.
> JFK's assassin. Some here, do believe he was guilty and others of us do
> not believe that he was. Judyth claims to have played a role in LHO's life
> before the assassination. I do believe we need to know if her claims are
> true or not.
>
I can't be 100% sure, but I tend to think that no part of Judyth's story
can prove that Oswald was a shooter or not a shooter. He didn't tell her
what he did that day. As a general policy you should just ignore her
claims.
> If she had written a fictional book, no one would care to try and dig
You mean like Bugliosi's book or Posner's book or Russo's book? Even
Donahue's book with his impossible theory has some interesting graphics.
> deeper for the truth. It would just merely be a good story. But, that has
It's not even that good a Romance novel.
> not been the case and her claims were told as though true. Most of us
> cannot just take someones word on such claims. We need to know whether the
> claims are actually true or just fantasy.
>
Some claims are not even worth considering.
> It is my strong belief, that if Barb discovered a claim to be true, she
> would disclose that fact, just as she will disclose any descrepencis she
> has discovered. Barb, is willing to put her time and effort into checking
Nah.
> out claims, which I don't feel warrants the hostility and redicule that
> she has received from the Judyth supporters.....irregardless of how much
> it seems to upset them. Do we not deserve the truth? With no proof for all
> the claims, we are never going to know the truth, unless someone does as
> Barb, is attempting to do.
>
The truth has nothing to do with Judyth.
> Many times I have stated that I have never believed Judyth's claims, from
> when I first read about her, by Amy Goodwin, at Salon.com. Somehow it just
> made my own built-in BS detector rise sky-high. Was that fair of me?
> Probably not, and I will admit that. But sometimes, we just seem to
OK, so maybe rejecting out of hand the theory that aliens knocked down
the World Trade Center with energy means is not fair either, but it is
sound science.
> believe something or we don't. All the years with Judyth on the various
> forums, I never changed my initial opinion. However, when her book was
> finally published, I actualy ordered it immediately. I also made a
> decision to attempt to read it with an open mind, which I did not
> previously have. I also beliieved I was going to finally see all the
> promised documnetaion that would prove her claims. Throughout her book, I
Your BS detector should always go off when people refuse to show you the
evidence and tell you that you have to wait for the book to come out. Just
as I pointed out about a certain WC defender here who claims that Castro
killed Kennedy.
> kept asking myself if certain claims might actually be true. Yet, by the
Well, sure some claims might be true. She worked at Reily. She wrote a
letter to President Kennedy. She went to Roswell Park to do advanced
cancer research. I have never been a fan of the naysayer theories that
people can manufacture and backdate evidence in the National Archives or
in local newspapers. I am sure someone in intelligence could do it
sometimes, but very rarely and easily caught.
> time I finished the book, I realized that if any portion of her claims
> were even possibly true, then she messed it all up with both fantasy and
> embellishment in order to enhance the claims. In addition, there was way
> too many excuses for different things, including why she didn't have some
> proof of one thing or another. The promised documentation was not there!
> Many claims were overkill in strange sort of apologizing & explaining
> different reasons for different claims. I was finally able to conclude
> that there was just no way possible to know what is truth and what isn't,
> because of all the extra embellishments to almost every claim. Yet,
> actually that seems to be what Barb has been discovering too.
>
> The explanations I have read so far, in response to Barb's discoveries,
> (which is of course only my own opinion) is that it only appears to be an
> altering of former claims, to fit the new discoveries. Again, only claims
> without any proof. I find it rather problematic that anyone would keep
> very minor tokens of the past, that don't actually even prove anything,
I do not find it problematic that people would keep extremely minor
tokens of the past. I still have the ruby red Fostoria coin wine glasses
that my college sweetheart gave me 40 years ago. What I don't do is
claim that Lee Harvey Oswald gave them to me.
> for 45 years and yet not keep items of real significance, such as
> meaningful Papers they had presented at some event....and then to also
We can not be sure that the professor did not keep the paper as an example
to show to students the next year. I wrote an extremely interesting paper
on pre-polyphonic music notation that my professor kept for reference.
Judyth really did write a letter to President Kennedy. I found it. I held
it in my hands. Apparently she did not make a copy of it at the time.
> only offer excuses, as to why they are unavailable. So, it still all boils
> down to if we are willing to believe or disbelieve claims without proof.
> That is acceptable to some and yet not to most of us.
>
> I am in agreement that there is too much redicule and hostility expressed
> with both the believers and disbelievers. But I especially see mostly
> redicule and hostility, along with snide remarks, coming from the
> supporters. That is, rather then attempting to actually do any digging or
It is not the opponents of Team McAdams who go around calling people
nuts and kooks.
> even in the discussing of real issues, I see no attempt to try and find
> the truth, in the midst of descrepencies. It strikes me that they only
> need blind faith to ascept her claims as the truth. Yet that is what Barb
> is attempting to do, rather then to just accept that Judyth has been
> untruthful....and that just seems to upset the supporters. One person even
> accused her of frantcally searching, yet at the same time, this person was
> actually the one frantically attempting to break down the doors of
> Roswell, hoping to find someone to recant what Barb was told and also
The issue was not what Judyth was told. The issue was what actually
happened.
> attempting to reduce the informer to one of minor significance in actually
> knowing anything. Barb gave ample opportunuty for someone who did know
> (Mirand) to recant and he did not do so, which is quite clear, from even
> Judyth's latest account.
>
I have not seen a letter from Mirand posted. Have you?
Martin Shackelford
During the period of the cancer project, she was working at Reily, NOT at
the burger joint, where she remained only briefly. You clowns all seem to
have a "burger" fetish.
Martin
"paul seaton" <paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:481b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> <jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bac3f029-ba63-4770...@j9g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>the get-Castro, undercover-medical community
>
>
> Do we now have labels for all possible social sub-groups ? :-) the overt -
> psychiatric - horticultural community ? the Wear Pyjamas & Bolivian Hat
> while singing Schubert on a small boat community ?
>
> Before we get carried away, just what evidence exists for the numerical
> extent of this putative band of brigands, the ' get-Castro,
> undercover-medical community '?
>
> I mean, I know about the powder in the skuba suit caper, and something
> about LSD all over his cigar ..can't think of more. I wonder what kind of
> lifestyles these CIA funded research medics lived ? You have to admit,
> you'd be surprised if you found they were doing it as a night job in some
> dude's kitchen while they spent the days serving hamburgers to keep the
> wolf from the door. I mean, think of the GDP of the USA and then work out
> how much the USA could afford to pay helpful scientific nerds & beat-nik
> wierdos ... & Uncle Sam just couldn't get sandwiches to it's prize
> bio-weaponeer ?
>
jfk...@gmail.com
> paul seaton wrote:
>
> > <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Great information, Anthony. It seems that the naysayers are only able to
attack Judyth in a vacuum, when the irony is that many of her statements
point to a larger area of fascinating, and yet largely unresearched
programs and plots.
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Another blatant distortion, Paul.
>
>During the period of the cancer project, she was working at Reily, NOT at
>the burger joint, where she remained only briefly. You clowns all seem to
>have a "burger" fetish.
>
>Martin
"clowns"?
The question is why was she working anywhere during this bioweapons
project? What some "clowns" seem unable to appreciate
is just how ridiculous that is ... as well as needing to flip burgers
*at all*.
But I am glad you brought up her employment at Reily...
How do you know Judyth's position at Reily was as Mr. Monaghan's
secretary? (A want ad for the position does not mean that is the
position for which she was hired, as I am sure you know, of course.)
Thanks,
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
" Just because her claims are ridiculous...." said Anthony.
He IS a "naysayer, Pamela.<g>
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Perhaps you are confusing your toilet with your claims. :-)
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bac3f029-ba63-4770...@j9g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >the get-Castro, undercover-medical community
>
> Do we now have labels for all possible social sub-groups ? :-) the overt -
> psychiatric - horticultural community ? the Wear Pyjamas & Bolivian Hat
> while singing Schubert on a small boat community ?
Nice of you to document for us any claims we might make that you think
ignorance is bliss when it comes to orienting Judyth's statements into
contemporary events. Unfortunately, your statement also provides
substantiation for my assertion that the naysayers insist on trying to
attack Judyth in a vacuum, while her statements in fact point to a large
and interesting area of which there is not much definition.
>
> Before we get carried away, just what evidence exists for the numerical
> extent of this putative band of brigands, the ' get-Castro,
> undercover-medical community '?
Are you able to acknowledge that there were get-Castro plots in play in
1963? Are you willing to acknowledge that Dr. Mary Sherman was murdered?
Are you willing to examine the statements of Dr. Adele Edelman and her
connection to Dr. Rivera? Are you able to acknowledge that Garrison
himself considered indicting Dr. Oschner?
>
> I mean, I know about the powder in the skuba suit caper, and something
> about LSD all over his cigar ..can't think of more. I wonder what kind of
> lifestyles these CIA funded research medics lived ? You have to admit,
> you'd be surprised if you found they were doing it as a night job in some
> dude's kitchen while they spent the days serving hamburgers to keep the
> wolf from the door. I mean, think of the GDP of the USA and then work out
> how much the USA could afford to pay helpful scientific nerds & beat-nik
> wierdos ... & Uncle Sam just couldn't get sandwiches to it's prize
> bio-weaponeer ?
>
If you do your own research, instead of being spoon-fed by Team McAdams,
you might have better questions to ask.
jfk...@gmail.com
> Anthony said.....
>
> Barb's only goal is to dig up dirt.
>
> It's a pity that no one bothered to do any serious fact checking before
> her book was published. It's a pity that 99.99% of the bandwidth here is
> wasted on attacking Judyth.
>
> __________________________________
>
> Barb's only goal is in one thing and that is in learning, the
> truth.....just as most of us want to know. There is no dirt digging going
> on.
If only that were so. Barb is making a good research effort, but she
doesn't know what to do with what she finds. So far, she has been
attempting to garbage-pick for anything detrimental to Judyth while
ignoring valuable corroborating information for Judyth's statements. In
case you are just blissfully naive, that is what dirt-digging looks like.
>No one has attempted to try and find out anything scandulous about
> Judyth to do with her own personal life....that is not of any importance
> to us.
Really? Then apparently it doesn't bother you that Barb seems to be
furious that she is unable to get personal details on Judyth's situation
at RP and at St. Francis U, from people who are protecting someone who was
a minor at the time?
>No one has attempted to go beyond what she herself has claimed.
Not so. Barb has been tugging like a dog with a chew toy on every moment
at RP, and wants to know all the intimate details of why Judyth left St.
Francis. Judyth's statement have not been enough to satisfy Barb.
> But, when someone has made extroadinary claims regarding their past life
> and goes so far as to write a book about it, then extroadinary proof is
> required, to go along with it.
>
> After all, these claims involve a tragedy in our history that is of utmost
> importance to us, particulary those of us, who attempt to study the JFK
> Assassination. It also involves the accusation of Lee Harvey Oswald as
> JFK's assassin. Some here, do believe he was guilty and others of us do
> not believe that he was. Judyth claims to have played a role in LHO's life
> before the assassination. I do believe we need to know if her claims are
> true or not.
>
> If she had written a fictional book, no one would care to try and dig
> deeper for the truth. It would just merely be a good story. But, that has
> not been the case and her claims were told as though true. Most of us
> cannot just take someones word on such claims. We need to know whether the
> claims are actually true or just fantasy.
>
> It is my strong belief, that if Barb discovered a claim to be true, she
> would disclose that fact, just as she will disclose any descrepencis she
> has discovered.
Barb is discovering claims that are true and walking right by them. She
has corroborated the existence of Judyth's paper on melanoma and the fact
that it was presented two or three different times, yet you won't find her
discussing that fact, much less the fact that Judyth accomplished this as
a teen-ager.
>Barb, is willing to put her time and effort into checking
> out claims, which I don't feel warrants the hostility and redicule that
> she has received from the Judyth supporters.....irregardless of how much
> it seems to upset them. Do we not deserve the truth? With no proof for all
> the claims, we are never going to know the truth, unless someone does as
> Barb, is attempting to do.
Barb is working from a narrow focus, because her only objective is to dig
up dirt on Judyth. It would be valuable if she could alter her process
and simply allow the information to be presented, without trying to skew
it against Judyth. And pigs might fly.
>
> Many times I have stated that I have never believed Judyth's claims, from
> when I first read about her, by Amy Goodwin, at Salon.com. Somehow it just
> made my own built-in BS detector rise sky-high. Was that fair of me?
> Probably not, and I will admit that. But sometimes, we just seem to
> believe something or we don't. All the years with Judyth on the various
> forums, I never changed my initial opinion. However, when her book was
> finally published, I actualy ordered it immediately. I also made a
> decision to attempt to read it with an open mind, which I did not
> previously have. I also beliieved I was going to finally see all the
> promised documnetaion that would prove her claims. Throughout her book, I
> kept asking myself if certain claims might actually be true. Yet, by the
> time I finished the book, I realized that if any portion of her claims
> were even possibly true, then she messed it all up with both fantasy and
> embellishment in order to enhance the claims. In addition, there was way
> too many excuses for different things, including why she didn't have some
> proof of one thing or another. The promised documentation was not there!
> Many claims were overkill in strange sort of apologizing & explaining
> different reasons for different claims. I was finally able to conclude
> that there was just no way possible to know what is truth and what isn't,
> because of all the extra embellishments to almost every claim. Yet,
> actually that seems to be what Barb has been discovering too.
I have no issue with your position on Judyth's statements. My concern is
to keep research moving forward, rather than shutting it down, as Team
McAdams wants to do.
>
> The explanations I have read so far, in response to Barb's discoveries,
> (which is of course only my own opinion) is that it only appears to be an
> altering of former claims, to fit the new discoveries. Again, only claims
> without any proof. I find it rather problematic that anyone would keep
> very minor tokens of the past, that don't actually even prove anything,
> for 45 years and yet not keep items of real significance, such as
> meaningful Papers they had presented at some event....and then to also
> only offer excuses, as to why they are unavailable. So, it still all boils
> down to if we are willing to believe or disbelieve claims without proof.
> That is acceptable to some and yet not to most of us.
Judyth is very intelligent, and for that reason, as well as others, many
people don't want to find her credible. They are uncomfortable dealing
with someone who is smarter than they are. To try to pick up on one thing
or another about Judyth is fruitless -- just a way of trying to fit a
square peg into a round hole.
You have taken the time to read Judyth's book and examine her statements,
as well as doing research on your own. You can also orient Judyth's
statments in the medical underworld of NOLA in 1963 with the get-Castro
plots and the murder of Dr. Sherman.
>
> I am in agreement that there is too much redicule and hostility expressed
> with both the believers and disbelievers. But I especially see mostly
> redicule and hostility, along with snide remarks, coming from the
> supporters. That is, rather then attempting to actually do any digging or
> even in the discussing of real issues, I see no attempt to try and find
> the truth, in the midst of descrepencies. It strikes me that they only
> need blind faith to ascept her claims as the truth. Yet that is what Barb
> is attempting to do, rather then to just accept that Judyth has been
> untruthful....and that just seems to upset the supporters. One person even
> accused her of frantcally searching, yet at the same time, this person was
> actually the one frantically attempting to break down the doors of
> Roswell, hoping to find someone to recant what Barb was told and also
> attempting to reduce the informer to one of minor significance in actually
> knowing anything. Barb gave ample opportunuty for someone who did know
> (Mirand) to recant and he did not do so, which is quite clear, from even
> Judyth's latest account.
There was no dismissal, Judyth's paper was presented, and she went forward
to St. Francis with grants that were cancelled when her parents forced her
to leave. None of this has changed, despite the gossip and mudslinging.
>
> I have no idea of how or when this is all going to end, but it certainly
> has consumed us for many years now.....possibly too many years!
>
Well, you'll have to talk to Barb, as she is the one initiating these
threads and this new level of discussion.
Anthony Marsh
I hated the CIA even before it became personal. For what they have done to
our country and what they have done to others in our country's name. My
hatred of the CIA has absolutely nothing to do with the physical facts
about the JFK assassination.
> His opinions become much more comprehensible - in fact, almost 100%
> predictable - when viewed in that light. Initailly I couldn't understand
> why he was so involved in a discussion of someone (JVB) - in a defencive
> capacity - whose story he avowedly believes is 87 % crap. The reason, i
No defense. My complaint is about your tactics, which you use against ANY
conspiracy believer.
> have devined, is that almost any discussion on this ng is rich hunting
> grounds for Tony, because they nearly all involve the genus 'WC
> Defender', who by implication think Tony's 'I hate the CIA therefore
> they killed JFK' theory is seriously flawed.
>
Illogical. For many years when I hated the CIA I thought it was the Cowboy
wing of the Military Industrial Complex which killed Kennedy, to overturn
his policies, especially about Vietnam. I ran across the CIA theory by
accident, reading about the limousine in a 1964 Time magazine article.
Then I started investigating the elements of the theory they outlined and
finding proof for some of those elements.
> Any thread here is a good place to find absolute HERDS of the enemy. If
> he can't get you on your citations, he'll get you on your spelling
> mistakes. Either way, he'll get you.
>
I only bring up spelling mistakes, as I have explained dozens of times
before, to knock people off their high horses when they pretend to be more
educated than the conspiracy believers.
> So.. trying to get a stranglehold on Tony by resorting to mere *logic*
> is pointless.
>
Logic? I see very little logic coming from the WC defenders.
> paul s
Anthony Marsh
No, not what I said. And how could I think that when I reject almost all
of her story. Use a little simple logic. You love to make personal
attacks. I criticize tons of conspiracy stories all the time. Anyone who
has ever been on the receiving end of my criticisms knows that all too
well.
> In that case, what about when you criticize Z film alterationists? I guess
> that really does make you a WC defender, just like the nuts in the nuthouse
> accuse you of. After all, you're using exactly the same logic.
>
As I said before, about 1,000 times, the wackiest conspiracy believers
point to my debunking of their theories as proof that I am a WC defender.
But again your only point is to make a personal attack.
> Michael
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Again, you distort her claims to disprove an element she did not claim.
Just as you changed her Cancun into the City of Cancun. You think you can
discredit her by creating straw man arguments and proving your skills by
knocking down things she never said.
> Her claims are many. Her evidence and documentation are sorely
Her claims are 87% bogus. Makes me wonder why it took you 5 years to
figure that out.
> lacking. Each claim has to be checked out individually.
>> I said 87%, but she says 100% because of biased sampling.
>
> You picked a number out of your sock and applied it to her story
> overall. I have been working to confirm or deny individual claims that
> CAN be researched and documented. Not all of her claims can be.
>
Not all of her claims are worth investigating.
> And since you choose to be blind to it, but others are not ... your WC
> defender crap looks really ridiculous. This is not a CT vs LN issue.
>
I will always complain about the WC defender tactics. Get used to it.
> This is a matyter of established just what and what is not factual
> truth in her story. And you seem hell bent on disrupting and diverting
> those efforts and discussions that come from it.
What the Hell difference does it make what parts of her story are real and
which are bogus?
Anthony Marsh
No, Team McAdams thinks that by discrediting Judyth they prove that
there was no conspiracy.
Anthony Marsh
Typical Team McAdams personal attack.
paul seaton
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:492ad5f9-1d4c-4da0...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Pamela said : Great information, Anthony. It seems that the naysayers are
only able to attack Judyth in a vacuum, when the irony is that many of her
statements point to a larger area of fascinating, and yet largely
unresearched programs and plots.
Paul S says : Just to remind you, Pam, here's Tony's real opinion of
Judyth in another thread, right here right now :
"As I explained before, Judyth's claims were so bizarre that I immediately
dismissed them and do not think ANYONE should waste even a millisecond
taking them seriously."
We have to keep this basic tenet in the back of our minds when we read
Tony's posts - otherwise we - and you - seem liable to forget.
paul s
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Precisely WHICH "element" do you say she did not claim?
Barb Junkkarinen
>On May 2, 6:25 pm, gateway...@webtv.net (Dixie M Dea) wrote:
>> Anthony said.....
>>
>> Barb's only goal is to dig up dirt.
>>
>> It's a pity that no one bothered to do any serious fact checking before
>> her book was published. It's a pity that 99.99% of the bandwidth here is
>> wasted on attacking Judyth.
>>
>> __________________________________
>>
>> Barb's only goal is in one thing and that is in learning, the
>> truth.....just as most of us want to know. There is no dirt digging going
>> on.
>
>If only that were so. Barb is making a good research effort, but she
>doesn't know what to do with what she finds. So far, she has been
>attempting to garbage-pick for anything detrimental to Judyth while
>ignoring valuable corroborating information for Judyth's statements. In
>case you are just blissfully naive, that is what dirt-digging looks like.
What "valuable corroborating evidence" is there that shows:
ANYone arranged, hired and instructor and got a class in Russian going
at Manatee Jr College FOR Judyth, and that began in the Spring of
1960, as Judyth claims?
The existence of the Indiana Biological Association, where Judyth
claims she presented a paper ... driven either by voucjing nuns or by
an aunt and cousins to Notre Dame to do it (depending on her version
du jour) ...and that as a result, she received a full scholarship?
The existence of any actual evidence/documentation that Judyth, who
claims she received a scholarship and/or grants from the NSF, not only
in 1961, but in 1962 and 1963 as well?
That's just three on which actual documentation denies Judyth's
claims.
What "valuable corroborating evidence" was ignored to just
"garbage-pick for something detrimental"?
Will you actually back up a claim, for once? Or do your usual ignore,
divert and dodge on this too?
>
>
>>No one has attempted to try and find out anything scandulous about
>> Judyth to do with her own personal life....that is not of any importance
>> to us.
>
>Really? Then apparently it doesn't bother you that Barb seems to be
>furious that she is unable to get personal details on Judyth's situation
>at RP and at St. Francis U, from people who are protecting someone who was
>a minor at the time?
First of all, you have no idea what I know or do not know. Secondly
... "furious"? That's ridiculous. The details, as I posted at the time
I posted the info from Roswell that she had been dismissed from their
program,. are not the salient point.
Sounds more like it is you who are frantic that you can't get what you
are assume are dirty details. You and Anthony ... go figure.
>
>>No one has attempted to go beyond what she herself has claimed.
>
>Not so. Barb has been tugging like a dog with a chew toy on every moment
>at RP, and wants to know all the intimate details of why Judyth left St.
>Francis.
ROTFL!!!
> Judyth's statement have not been enough to satisfy Barb.
Of course not! Because her statements are just more of her
***unverified claims*** ...and in the face of documentation that says
otherwise!
Gee, Pamela ... catch on, dear.
>
>
>> But, when someone has made extroadinary claims regarding their past life
>> and goes so far as to write a book about it, then extroadinary proof is
>> required, to go along with it.
>>
>> After all, these claims involve a tragedy in our history that is of utmost
>> importance to us, particulary those of us, who attempt to study the JFK
>> Assassination. It also involves the accusation of Lee Harvey Oswald as
>> JFK's assassin. Some here, do believe he was guilty and others of us do
>> not believe that he was. Judyth claims to have played a role in LHO's life
>> before the assassination. I do believe we need to know if her claims are
>> true or not.
>>
>> If she had written a fictional book, no one would care to try and dig
>> deeper for the truth. It would just merely be a good story. But, that has
>> not been the case and her claims were told as though true. Most of us
>> cannot just take someones word on such claims. We need to know whether the
>> claims are actually true or just fantasy.
>>
>> It is my strong belief, that if Barb discovered a claim to be true, she
>> would disclose that fact, just as she will disclose any descrepencis she
>> has discovered.
>
>Barb is discovering claims that are true and walking right by them.
Oh really ... examples please!
> She
>has corroborated the existence of Judyth's paper on melanoma and the fact
>that it was presented two or three different times,
Nope. I have been able to confirm she presented a apoaer the Fall of
1961, at the Indiana Academy of Science Fall meeting.
I have not, in the least, been able to corroborate the paper being
presented any otrher time.
> yet you won't find her
>discussing that fact, much less the fact that Judyth accomplished this as
>a teen-ager.
Because it is not a fact. If you have ***facts*** that document any
additional presentations of the paper ... do lay them out right here
for all to see. If I had corroborated those things .. I would have
posted the information ... just like I did the inforrmation about the
Indiana Academy of Science .. which wasn't even Judyth's claim
I'm not the one who goes mute and fails to post information that I
find that is contrary to what I personally about
Judyth. :-))))
We all know Judyth was a teenager when she graduated high school and
went to college. Most kids are. :-)
>
>>Barb, is willing to put her time and effort into checking
>> out claims, which I don't feel warrants the hostility and redicule that
>> she has received from the Judyth supporters.....irregardless of how much
>> it seems to upset them. Do we not deserve the truth? With no proof for all
>> the claims, we are never going to know the truth, unless someone does as
>> Barb, is attempting to do.
>
>Barb is working from a narrow focus, because her only objective is to dig
>up dirt on Judyth. It would be valuable if she could alter her process
>and simply allow the information to be presented, without trying to skew
>it against Judyth. And pigs might fly.
I post what I have been able to document.
How about you?
>
>>
>> Many times I have stated that I have never believed Judyth's claims, from
>> when I first read about her, by Amy Goodwin, at Salon.com. Somehow it just
>> made my own built-in BS detector rise sky-high. Was that fair of me?
>> Probably not, and I will admit that. But sometimes, we just seem to
>> believe something or we don't. All the years with Judyth on the various
>> forums, I never changed my initial opinion. However, when her book was
>> finally published, I actualy ordered it immediately. I also made a
>> decision to attempt to read it with an open mind, which I did not
>> previously have. I also beliieved I was going to finally see all the
>> promised documnetaion that would prove her claims. Throughout her book, I
>> kept asking myself if certain claims might actually be true. Yet, by the
>> time I finished the book, I realized that if any portion of her claims
>> were even possibly true, then she messed it all up with both fantasy and
>> embellishment in order to enhance the claims. In addition, there was way
>> too many excuses for different things, including why she didn't have some
>> proof of one thing or another. The promised documentation was not there!
>> Many claims were overkill in strange sort of apologizing & explaining
>> different reasons for different claims. I was finally able to conclude
>> that there was just no way possible to know what is truth and what isn't,
>> because of all the extra embellishments to almost every claim. Yet,
>> actually that seems to be what Barb has been discovering too.
>
>I have no issue with your position on Judyth's statements. My concern is
>to keep research moving forward, rather than shutting it down, as Team
>McAdams wants to do.
One would think, as a lurker noted, that researching and finding,
documenting and posting previously unresearched claims IS moving
things forward.
You just don't like the direction documentation has moved things.
>
>>
>> The explanations I have read so far, in response to Barb's discoveries,
>> (which is of course only my own opinion) is that it only appears to be an
>> altering of former claims, to fit the new discoveries. Again, only claims
>> without any proof. I find it rather problematic that anyone would keep
>> very minor tokens of the past, that don't actually even prove anything,
>> for 45 years and yet not keep items of real significance, such as
>> meaningful Papers they had presented at some event....and then to also
>> only offer excuses, as to why they are unavailable. So, it still all boils
>> down to if we are willing to believe or disbelieve claims without proof.
>> That is acceptable to some and yet not to most of us.
>
>Judyth is very intelligent, and for that reason, as well as others, many
>people don't want to find her credible. They are uncomfortable dealing
>with someone who is smarter than they are. To try to pick up on one thing
>or another about Judyth is fruitless -- just a way of trying to fit a
>square peg into a round hole.
Confirming or denying ...documentably ...Judyth's claims have NOTHING
to do with how smart she is or any pegs in holes. A claim can either
be verified ... or not.
But you sure do a weird dance trying to convince people otherwise.
>
>You have taken the time to read Judyth's book and examine her statements,
>as well as doing research on your own. You can also orient Judyth's
>statments in the medical underworld of NOLA in 1963 with the get-Castro
>plots and the murder of Dr. Sherman.
Those things don't validate Judyth's claims. Anyone could weave a
story using known facts as a device.
Apparently not anyone can comprehend that.
>
>>
>> I am in agreement that there is too much redicule and hostility expressed
>> with both the believers and disbelievers. But I especially see mostly
>> redicule and hostility, along with snide remarks, coming from the
>> supporters. That is, rather then attempting to actually do any digging or
>> even in the discussing of real issues, I see no attempt to try and find
>> the truth, in the midst of descrepencies. It strikes me that they only
>> need blind faith to ascept her claims as the truth. Yet that is what Barb
>> is attempting to do, rather then to just accept that Judyth has been
>> untruthful....and that just seems to upset the supporters. One person even
>> accused her of frantcally searching, yet at the same time, this person was
>> actually the one frantically attempting to break down the doors of
>> Roswell, hoping to find someone to recant what Barb was told and also
>> attempting to reduce the informer to one of minor significance in actually
>> knowing anything. Barb gave ample opportunuty for someone who did know
>> (Mirand) to recant and he did not do so, which is quite clear, from even
>> Judyth's latest account.
>
>There was no dismissal, Judyth's paper was presented, and she went forward
>to St. Francis with grants that were cancelled when her parents forced her
>to leave. None of this has changed, despite the gossip and mudslinging.
Oh my! Please DO tell us where you got these bits of information ..
and that you can document them!
Oh wait ... it's because Judyth says so, despite RP and the NSF saying
otherwise.
The NSF annual reports are neither gossip nor mudslinging. They just
don't happen to support Judyth's claims.
The information I was e-mailed by Roswell Park, which has NOT been
retracted, is not gossip nor mudslinging. It just contradicts Judyth's
claims.
>
>>
>> I have no idea of how or when this is all going to end, but it certainly
>> has consumed us for many years now.....possibly too many years!
>>
>
>Well, you'll have to talk to Barb, as she is the one initiating these
>threads and this new level of discussion.
Judyth made a lot of claims. Not all can be fact checked. But many
can.
Telling that that bothers you so much.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Well, since you say you always back up your claims ... BACK UP THIS
ONE.
Quotes of ANYone EVER saying that if Judyth's tale is not true, it
means there was no conspiracy.
And don't worry ... if you forget, I will remind you ... because I
know you don't want anyone to be able to point to a claim you didn't
back up. :-))))
Barb Junkkarinen
>On May 3, 12:15 am, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
>wrote:
>> <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:bac3f029-ba63-4770...@j9g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >the get-Castro, undercover-medical community
>>
>> Do we now have labels for all possible social sub-groups ? :-) the overt -
>> psychiatric - horticultural community ? the Wear Pyjamas & Bolivian Hat
>> while singing Schubert on a small boat community ?
>
>Nice of you to document for us any claims we might make that you think
>ignorance is bliss when it comes to orienting Judyth's statements into
>contemporary events. Unfortunately, your statement also provides
>substantiation for my assertion that the naysayers insist on trying to
>attack Judyth in a vacuum, while her statements in fact point to a large
>and interesting area of which there is not much definition.
Just how much "definition" of any interesting area do you think you
are going to get from a person whose claims that CAN be fact checked
... do not seem to be panning out in her favor?
>
>>
>> Before we get carried away, just what evidence exists for the numerical
>> extent of this putative band of brigands, the ' get-Castro,
>> undercover-medical community '?
>
>Are you able to acknowledge that there were get-Castro plots in play in
>1963? Are you willing to acknowledge that Dr. Mary Sherman was murdered?
>Are you willing to examine the statements of Dr. Adele Edelman and her
>connection to Dr. Rivera? Are you able to acknowledge that Garrison
>himself considered indicting Dr. Oschner?
What do any of these things have to do with Judyth ... UNLESS even her
basic claims can be verified?
It's funny how you and Martin go all huff & puf aout "unverified
claims" ... unless it is a claim Judyth makes. Then even documentation
tot he contrary becomes gossip, rumor, mudslinging and nothing but
digging for dirt to you.
That's not lost on anyone, you know. Surely you must know that.
>
>>
>> I mean, I know about the powder in the skuba suit caper, and something
>> about LSD all over his cigar ..can't think of more. I wonder what kind of
>> lifestyles these CIA funded research medics lived ? You have to admit,
>> you'd be surprised if you found they were doing it as a night job in some
>> dude's kitchen while they spent the days serving hamburgers to keep the
>> wolf from the door. I mean, think of the GDP of the USA and then work out
>> how much the USA could afford to pay helpful scientific nerds & beat-nik
>> wierdos ... & Uncle Sam just couldn't get sandwiches to it's prize
>> bio-weaponeer ?
>>
>
>If you do your own research, instead of being spoon-fed by Team McAdams,
>you might have better questions to ask.
And ... of course, it follow, that if you do your own research instead
of being spoonfed by Judyth's claims .. you might find some answers,
as well as more and better questions to ask.
And you say others are operating in a vacuum.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
No, Tony, the typical Team Judyth attack was yours ... and that is
about all you post, like above:
"Except for the fact that Barb's only agenda is to attack Judyth at
all costs."
>
>>
>>
jfk...@gmail.com
Why is that paul? You seem to have forgotten the statements I have made.
I don't care if people agree with Judyth's statements or not. I prefer
that her statements be considered as coming from someone who is documented
to have been in NOLA at Reily with LHO and an eccentric cancer-research
background in the summer of 1963.
Try to keep up.
jfk...@gmail.com
And by doing so with everything connected to a conspiracy, they leave
nothing to 'believe' in but the greatest hoax of all, the WCR.
Barb Junkkarinen
What makes Judyth "documented" as having a "cancer research
background" in NOLA in the summer of 1963 ... "eccentric" or not?
>
>Try to keep up.
Yeah. :-)
paul seaton
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5544c9a1-27c9-431e...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 12:15 am, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
wrote:
> <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bac3f029-ba63-4770...@j9g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >the get-Castro, undercover-medical community
>
> Do we now have labels for all possible social sub-groups ? :-) the overt -
> psychiatric - horticultural community ? the Wear Pyjamas & Bolivian Hat
> while singing Schubert on a small boat community ?
Nice of you to document for us any claims we might make that you think
ignorance is bliss when it comes to orienting Judyth's statements into
contemporary events. Unfortunately, your statement also provides
substantiation for my assertion that the naysayers insist on trying to
attack Judyth in a vacuum, while her statements in fact point to a large
and interesting area of which there is not much definition.
## sorry ? can you translate that into english ?
>
> Before we get carried away, just what evidence exists for the numerical
> extent of this putative band of brigands, the ' get-Castro,
> undercover-medical community '?
Are you able to acknowledge that there were get-Castro plots in play in
1963? Are you willing to acknowledge that Dr. Mary Sherman was murdered?
Are you willing to examine the statements of Dr. Adele Edelman and her
connection to Dr. Rivera? Are you able to acknowledge that Garrison
himself considered indicting Dr. Oschner?
# i just asked... it's not important..
>
> I mean, I know about the powder in the skuba suit caper, and something
> about LSD all over his cigar ..can't think of more. I wonder what kind of
> lifestyles these CIA funded research medics lived ? You have to admit,
> you'd be surprised if you found they were doing it as a night job in some
> dude's kitchen while they spent the days serving hamburgers to keep the
> wolf from the door. I mean, think of the GDP of the USA and then work out
> how much the USA could afford to pay helpful scientific nerds & beat-nik
> wierdos ... & Uncle Sam just couldn't get sandwiches to it's prize
> bio-weaponeer ?
>
If you do your own research, instead of being spoon-fed by Team McAdams,
you might have better questions to ask.
# my question about the inability of the cia to keep it's operatives alive
without forcing them to work part time in a burger bar is a spoon fed
mcadams type question , not worthy of consideration by sophisticates ?
comprende.
paul s
John McAdams
<paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
><jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:5544c9a1-27c9-431e...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>On May 3, 12:15 am, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
>wrote:
>>
>
>If you do your own research, instead of being spoon-fed by Team McAdams,
>you might have better questions to ask.
>
># my question about the inability of the cia to keep it's operatives alive
>without forcing them to work part time in a burger bar is a spoon fed
>mcadams type question , not worthy of consideration by sophisticates ?
>comprende.
>
I'm must say that I'm flattered that people think I have all this
nefarious power over an entire "team" on the Internet.
Robert Harris actually thought I am sone kind of high level CIA
operative!
Now . . . if I can just persuade my wife and kids that I'm this
terribly important person with a dozen people taking orders from me
and therefore they should too!
Fat chance. :-(
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
paul seaton
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:488b7357-9f6f-410a...@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
#Pam, why the hell should they be ? If someone tells you their mother was
venusian, you take that at face value?
yeah i guess you do...
paul s
John McAdams
<paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
I think Pam's attitude is "she said it, how dare you question it?"
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
This is a wacky theory. There was a JFK research community ...CTs ...
long long long before Judyth arrived on the scene.
Barb Junkkarinen
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Are you comfortable with Barb's trying to get information about someone
who was a minor at the time? Doesn't any of the snooping for dirt at RP
and St. Francis, even when told these things are confidential, make you
even a tiny bit queasy?
jfk...@gmail.com
> On 4 May 2008 23:44:57 -0400, "paul seaton"
>
>
>
>
> ><jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
For Team McAdams there seem to be no limits and boundaries to where or
what they will do to try to dig up dirt on Judyth. Trying to bait people
into giving up confidential information about a minor is just creepy.
Barb Junkkarinen
Who did that? What "confidential" information was inappropriately
disclosed ... who did that, who did they disclose such information to?
Barb Junkkarinen
The face you are attemptiong to put on it is a tad creepy. I did not
ask anyone to disclose any information not allowed to be disclosed ...
nor did anyone do that.
The guy at RP, as you well know, offered to verify her mentor for me
if I gave him her name.
What's funny is that if he had come back and told me what a star she
was in the program, you wouldn't be able to stop lauding it!
NO one at St. Francis violated FERPA in ANY way....and I did not, in
ANY way, try to get them to do that. I listened to what the registrar
told me she could and could not do at a certain point after she had
asked *me* a question ... and that's what we did.
Don't be making "queasy" accusations.
>
paul seaton
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a297b309-1ad8-4eb9...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
..
Pam said : > I don't care if people agree with Judyth's statements or not.
I prefer
that her statements be considered as coming from someone who is documented
to have been in NOLA at Reily with LHO and an eccentric cancer-research
background in the summer of 1963.
You think there should be some special esoteric way of 'considering'
statements 'from someone who is documented
to have been in NOLA at Reily with LHO' that is different from the way we
should treat statements made by anyone else anywhere else.?
Does this special dispensation - iyho - apply to all people who work in
coffee factories with LHO?
We are not to consider them from the point of view 'is this witness telling
the truth?' but from the POV 'this witness was in the coffee business with
LHO' ? How exactly does one do that, Pam ?
William Yates
She was 18. And what's wrong with trying to verify what Judyth claims?
And are you including Tony in your denunciation here? After all, Judyth
was 17 when she wrote that letter to Kennedy and it was Tony who went
digging for dirt that time. (Although, admittedly, Tony wouldn't have
thought to do it if I hadn't suggested it.)
Anthony Marsh
You didn't ask about any other student. Your only goal was to dig up
dirt about Judyth.
Anthony Marsh
I post about a lot of other topics. The only reason I post only about
Judyth when replying to your posts is because you post only about Judyth.
Anthony Marsh
I didn't quote and I didn't say say. I said think.
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a297b309-1ad8-4eb9...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> ..
>
> Pam said : > I don't care if people agree with Judyth's statements or not.
> I prefer
> that her statements be considered as coming from someone who is documented
> to have been in NOLA at Reily with LHO and an eccentric cancer-research
> background in the summer of 1963.
>
> You think there should be some special esoteric way of 'considering'
> statements 'from someone who is documented
> to have been in NOLA at Reily with LHO' that is different from the way we
> should treat statements made by anyone else anywhere else.?
This approach works with witnesses in general.
> Does this special dispensation - iyho - apply to all people who work in
> coffee factories with LHO?
If a person is documented to be in a place at a time of interest it gives
them a grounding to what they are saying.
To compare, the Weldon mystery witness claimed to see the limo at the
Rouge on Monday Nov. 24th. However, ample documentation places the limo
in the White House Garage that day. There is also an eyewitness to what
happened to the limo in the WHG. Which witness is grounded and which is
not?
> We are not to consider them from the point of view 'is this witness telling
> the truth?' but from the POV 'this witness was in the coffee business with
> LHO' ? How exactly does one do that, Pam ?
If you start with a narrow perspective 'are they telling the truth' or
'are they lying' you set yourself up for pitfalls, especially if you don't
know what they are going to say. If you have a witness who is grounded
(documented to be at a place and time that is of interest) you can just
allow them to speak freely, and then weigh and evaluate their statements
based on other information that is available, or, in the case of a new
area of research, after doing parallel research in the area.
For example, discussing Judyth's statements about the get-Castro plot she
says she was involved in has grounding in that she has an eccentric
background in cancer research at a young age, inducing cancer in mice, and
is documented to have been in NOLA in the summer of 63 alone with Ferrie,
who also has a connection to cancer research and mice, and Dr. Sherman who
met an untimely and horrific end.
Because Judyth's statements statements are grounded, I am willing to
listen to what she has to say. But because there is not much research in
this area I am doing parallel research along different lines, such as the
statements of Dr. Adele Edison, the work on Dr. Sherman Ed Haslam is
doing, the CIA mind-control experiments resulting in the death of Frank
Olson, and other medical experiments that were taking place in secret
after WWII.
The objective is to determine what and how Judyth communicates ideas, and
what leads, if any, her statements provide. The more value they have, the
more new lanes of research and connections with other lanes of research
will develop. The fact that Team McAdams wants to shut down research in
this area makes it even more intriguing.
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
That could have been done without snooping.
>
> And are you including Tony in your denunciation here? After all, Judyth
> was 17 when she wrote that letter to Kennedy and it was Tony who went
> digging for dirt that time. (Although, admittedly, Tony wouldn't have
> thought to do it if I hadn't suggested it.)
Retrieving a letter doesn't involve snooping.
Barb Junkkarinen
Oh? It was research to verify a claim (so Tony thought anyway). What
is the difference between that and verifying attendamce at a college
.. or verifying when a class was first taught at a college ... or
verifying that Reily gave away a green glass...or a hundred other
things?
Verifying claims is "snooping." Interesting research protocol, Pamela.
ROTFL.
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Oh, I forgot. You know what people think evenif they never say it is
what they think...it's those crystal balls.
>
>> And don't worry ... if you forget, I will remind you ... because I
>> know you don't want anyone to be able to point to a claim you didn't
>> back up. :-))))
Guess you won't be backing up your claim ... because it's not based on
anything but your own air. As usual.
Barb Junkkarinen
Have a party, Paul. <g>
Barb :-)
William Yates
Which other students at RP that year claim to have had an affair with
Oswald and to have worked on a Get Castro project?
William Yates
And how does talking to witnesses to Judyth or people with access to
records pertaining to Judyth constitute snooping?
>> And are you including Tony in your denunciation here? After all, Judyth
>> was 17 when she wrote that letter to Kennedy and it was Tony who went
>> digging for dirt that time. (Although, admittedly, Tony wouldn't have
>> thought to do it if I hadn't suggested it.)
>
> Retrieving a letter doesn't involve snooping.
I'm sure the CIA will be happy to read that.
>
>