Judyth: Why doesn't Wim post these?
Dave Reitzes
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------
. . . [Dr. Canute] Michaelson gave my name to the CIA as one of the bright
brains in the country, and from that time on, I had access to equipment,
funds, you name it, as well as special training involving doctors who got
trained at Oak Ridge. . . . In short--and i [sic] can fill in many
details--I had gone through projects starting in indianapolis [sic] with
my being, apparently, conscripted into service of the CIA. I sa[y]
apparently because i [sic] was a minor, and my father may have signed
papers for me. I signed a lot of them, but I did not even bother to read
them.
<QUOTE OFF>----------------------------
It goes without saying that anyone who'd save her Reily Coffee paystubs
for forty years in order to prove her importance would also save copies of
the papers she signed when she was "conscripted into service of the CIA."
But if not, by now she has doubtless obtained copies via the Freedom of
Information Act.
Why doesn't Wim post these, I wonder.
Dave
Perpetual Starlight: Original fiction, music and more
http://www.reitzes.com
JFK Online: John F. Kennedy assassination
http://www.jfk-online.com
John McAdams
>In an e-mail of October 7, 2000, Judyth wrote:
>
>
><QUOTE ON>------------------------------
>
>. . . [Dr. Canute] Michaelson gave my name to the CIA as one of the bright
>brains in the country, and from that time on, I had access to equipment,
>funds, you name it, as well as special training involving doctors who got
>trained at Oak Ridge. . . . In short--and i [sic] can fill in many
>details--I had gone through projects starting in indianapolis [sic] with
>my being, apparently, conscripted into service of the CIA. I sa[y]
>apparently because i [sic] was a minor, and my father may have signed
>papers for me. I signed a lot of them, but I did not even bother to read
>them.
>
><QUOTE OFF>----------------------------
>
>
Just a couple of months ago, Judyth was *denying* that she had
portrayed Michaelson as sinister.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>In an e-mail of October 7, 2000, Judyth wrote:
>
>
><QUOTE ON>------------------------------
>
>. . . [Dr. Canute] Michaelson gave my name to the CIA as one of the bright
>brains in the country, and from that time on, I had access to equipment,
>funds, you name it, as well as special training involving doctors who got
>trained at Oak Ridge. . . . In short--and i [sic] can fill in many
>details--I had gone through projects starting in indianapolis [sic] with
>my being, apparently, conscripted into service of the CIA. I sa[y]
>apparently because i [sic] was a minor, and my father may have signed
>papers for me. I signed a lot of them, but I did not even bother to read
>them.
>
><QUOTE OFF>----------------------------
>
From: "Judyth Vary Baker" <ele...@xs4all.nl>
To: <john.m...@marquette.edu>
Cc: "Deb Bert" <deb...@cox.net>, "Karl Vissers"
<kvis...@insightbb.com>,
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net>,
"Steve Irish" <iri...@us.ibm.com>, "Vern Pascal"
<lazu...@webtv.net>
Subject: correction of error requested for second time> please
comply
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:35:54 +0100
To Mr. McAdams: You wrote, and have already been asked to change, the
following piece of outright disinformation:
"Her life then took a turn when she met Dr. Canute Michaelson.
Michaelson (supposedly a “CIA asset” engaged in bioweapons research)
drew Judyth into a plot that had the intention of killing Castro, but
ended up killing JFK instead.
I met Michaelson in October of 1958, five years before your blatantly
erroneous statement that "her life then took a turn when she met Dr.
Canute Michaelson..."
CORRECTION :
YOU ARE KINDLY ASKED -- AGAIN-- TO CORRECT THIS TO "In 1958 Judyth
briefly met Dr. Canute Michaelson, a Norwegian radiobiologist,
geneticist,and former anti-Hitler underground agent who had ties to
the CIA. He sparked her interest in radiation and cancer research at
that time and helped provide contacts with local doctors and
scientists for her."
MICHAELSON HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE PROJECT IN NEW
ORLEANS, WHICH OCCURRED IN 1963. YOU ARE ASKED TO CORRECT THIS BLATANT
ERROR IN YOUR 'ESSAY.'
MORE CORRECTIONS WILL FOLLOW.
Judyth Vary Baker
<Quote off>
Yes, that's the thing about Judyth's "corrections." She wants me to
*correct* my site to correspond with -- not what she once said -- but
what her *current* story is.
Dave Reitzes
And she and Martin have both denied she ever claimed to work for the CIA.
"Black is white. White is black."
Dave Reitzes
>
>>From: john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
>>
>>On 12 Aug 2004 23:12:21 -0400, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
>>
>>>In an e-mail of October 7, 2000, Judyth wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>><QUOTE ON>------------------------------
>>>
>>>. . . [Dr. Canute] Michaelson gave my name to the CIA as one of the bright
>>>brains in the country, and from that time on, I had access to equipment,
>>>funds, you name it, as well as special training involving doctors who got
>>>trained at Oak Ridge. . . . In short--and i [sic] can fill in many
>>>details--I had gone through projects starting in indianapolis [sic] with
>>>my being, apparently, conscripted into service of the CIA. I sa[y]
>>>apparently because i [sic] was a minor, and my father may have signed
>>>papers for me. I signed a lot of them, but I did not even bother to read
>>>them.
>>>
>>><QUOTE OFF>----------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Just a couple of months ago, Judyth was *denying* that she had
>>portrayed Michaelson as sinister.
>>
>>.John
>
>
>And she and Martin have both denied she ever claimed to work for the CIA.
>
>"Black is white. White is black."
>
>Dave
One can almost hear Martin: "You told people you signed WHAT???!"
Then out comes the Lysol.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>What's "sinister" about his passing on her name to someone, John?
>
Passing her name along to spooks and a secret intelligence network --
which eventually had her working for the CIA?
No, nothing "sinister" about that.
Rich DellaRosa
I have placed it on the web at: http://www.jfkresearch.com/judyth/
It's not much and IMO does not in any way corroborate her stories.
Few of these items were ever posted on my forum. Team Judyth's claims
that she provided all her evidence only for me to delete everything is
BOGUS. It never happened. They know that and they know I do not have her
forum posts archived anywhere. She NEVER posted any voluminous amounts of
"evidence." When I deleted her posts after she resigned from the forum
they were, for the most part, rambling narratives with no research value.
I think this charade has gone on long enough. If they have seen her
"evidence" let them likewise post it on the web for all to see.
Rich
John McAdams
<rich...@jfkresearch.com> wrote:
>I have taken all the "evidence" Judyth sent me via email two years ago.
>
>I have placed it on the web at: http://www.jfkresearch.com/judyth/
>
>It's not much and IMO does not in any way corroborate her stories.
>
>Few of these items were ever posted on my forum. Team Judyth's claims
>that she provided all her evidence only for me to delete everything is
>BOGUS. It never happened. They know that and they know I do not have her
>forum posts archived anywhere. She NEVER posted any voluminous amounts of
>"evidence." When I deleted her posts after she resigned from the forum
>they were, for the most part, rambling narratives with no research value.
>
>I think this charade has gone on long enough. If they have seen her
>"evidence" let them likewise post it on the web for all to see.
>
Thanks, Rich.
It is noticed that Judyth has always "posted her evidence" somewhere
else, but never *here.* And when people from the place where she
supposedly posted the evidence say they didn't see any, they are
attacked.
They are always ready to turn over evidence -- except not to any of
*us* and not right now.
Maybe they would have turned it over long ago, except that they
decided were were "unfair" to Judyth.
Of course, they *are* willing to turn it over to people like Nigel
Turner. Except he didn't see fit to use any of it. But they turned
this dynamite evidence over to him -- we have their word on that.
What they never ever do is post the evidence right here and right now.
The tactic isn't fooling anybody.
Martin Shackelford
your earlier "no evidence" claim was wrong. You didn't think she posted
enough evidence, or the "right" evidence, so you simply made the claim
that she posted "no evidence." We have a clearer idea now what's "bogus."
Martin
Dixie M Dea
Re: Judyth: Why doesn't Wim post these?
I have taken all the "evidence" Judyth sent me via email two years ago.
I have placed it on the web at: http://www.jfkresearch.com/judyth/
It's not much and IMO does not in any way corroborate her stories.
Few of these items were ever posted on my forum. Team Judyth's claims
that she provided all her evidence only for me to delete everything is
BOGUS. It never happened. They know that and they know I do not have her
forum posts archived anywhere. She NEVER posted any voluminous amounts
of "evidence."
When I deleted her posts after she resigned from the forum they were,
for the most part, rambling narratives with no research value.
I think this charade has gone on long enough. If they have seen her
"evidence" let them likewise post it on the web for all to see.
Group: alt.assassination.jfk Date: Sat, Aug 14, 2004, 3:54am (PDT+7)
From: john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
Thanks, Rich.
It is noticed that Judyth has always "posted her evidence" somewhere
else, but never *here.* And when people from the place where she
supposedly posted the evidence say they didn't see any, they are
attacked.
They are always ready to turn over evidence -- except not to any of
*us* and not right now.
Maybe they would have turned it over long ago, except that they decided
were were "unfair" to Judyth.
Of course, they *are* willing to turn it over to people like Nigel
Turner. Except he didn't see fit to use any of it. But they turned this
dynamite evidence over to him -- we have their word on that.
What they never ever do is post the evidence right here and right now.
The tactic isn't fooling anybody.
John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
HI
I have no reason to doubt anyones word about this and yet there are many
descrepencies which make me wonder just what is truth and what is not.
It is true that most of us have not seen any actual proof regarding
Judyth's claims. So, of course we can't say if she actually does have
any, that she claims to have or not. Most of us will have to just wait
and see what will be added in her book, which might appear within this
decade.
However, I do know that at every opportunity that has presented itself
for Judyth to actually show that she does indeed have something of
significance, relatng to her involvement with LHO, she has not done so.
Her very best chance was with her TMWKK segment. Now whether this was
her fault or not, I have no idea. Although, I do know that sometimes
such appearacnce do not always turn out as we had anticipated and it is
possible that she was also disaappointed. We have no way of knowing if
this is true or.not.
Yet, at every opportinity, like in various forums when given an
opportunity that she has desired so much, she has failed to show
anything beyond some items of her own personal documentation. She has
every right to withhold or display whatever she chooses, but to attempt
to claim she did show pertinent proof of her claims regardimg LHO, when
she didn't at all, that is what most of us (on the forums) have a
problem about.
Then we have those who say that we have not seen her proof and so how
can we be objective ,,as though it is freely being shown, and it is
our own fault for not seeing it.
Then we have some who claims to have seen her proof, some who are
seemingly even new Team Judyth recruits. I am wondering how hard it
would be for someone to assume this role in order to obtain all this
shared proof? I suspect some of it would have leaked out by now, even if
maybe sworn to a confidentiality agreement. Yet that doesn't seem to be
the case, since we have not seen such proof.
Then I mentioned in one post that I do have mutual friends of Judyth's,
who do support her and who say they have seen her documentation. Again,
I don't have any way of knowing if true or not and have no reason to
doubt them...if she does indeed have such proof. I even had one person
tell me that he didn't believe her, until he did see her proof.
But then, Martin replied to me that he thinks he knows who these mutual
friends are amd they did not see what all they claimed to have seen!!
Is this because Judyth is not showing anything to anyone or because she
has nothing to show anyway? I have no idea! I only regarded that as a
rather strange comment.
What seems to be the main problem is that the stories are not being kept
straight between the Judyth Team. It is like we are all on a path of
confusion. I am not suggesting that isn't partially our own fault,
except to just say that the truth of something doesn't hardly ever keep
changing. Plus, Ii is imposible for many of us to believe only claims
as, is being expected of us.
Just one more point....for those who are complaining about no free forum
for Judyth. She is able to be on John Simkins Educational Forum freely
and has done so several times.
There is also a little bio there about her.
Although, she herself, is the one that is constantly saying she won't be
able to post for awhile, for one reason or other. However, if she is
looking for a forum where she will be able to completely have control
and with no questions or replies or comments, then that is just not
going to happen.
Dixie
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>You can wait for the book, Rich. At least you're finally admitting that
>your earlier "no evidence" claim was wrong. You didn't think she posted
>enough evidence, or the "right" evidence, so you simply made the claim
>that she posted "no evidence." We have a clearer idea now what's "bogus."
>
Martin, this slicing and dicing the language doesn't help you.
Rich obviously means that she posted NO EVIDENCE OF HER EXPLOSIVE
CLAIMS.
Yes, she posted evidence that she was a good high school science
student.
And yes, she posted evidence that she lived in New Orleans and worked
a Reily Coffee Company.
We've all seen that stuff.
>Martin
>
>Rich DellaRosa wrote:
>
>> I have taken all the "evidence" Judyth sent me via email two years ago.
>>
>> I have placed it on the web at: http://www.jfkresearch.com/judyth/
>>
>> It's not much and IMO does not in any way corroborate her stories.
>>
>> Few of these items were ever posted on my forum. Team Judyth's claims
>> that she provided all her evidence only for me to delete everything is
>> BOGUS. It never happened. They know that and they know I do not have
>> her forum posts archived anywhere. She NEVER posted any voluminous
>> amounts of "evidence." When I deleted her posts after she resigned from
>> the forum they were, for the most part, rambling narratives with no
>> research value.
>>
>> I think this charade has gone on long enough. If they have seen her
>> "evidence" let them likewise post it on the web for all to see.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>>
.John
John McAdams
<rich...@jfkresearch.com> wrote:
>I have taken all the "evidence" Judyth sent me via email two years ago.
>
>I have placed it on the web at: http://www.jfkresearch.com/judyth/
>
>It's not much and IMO does not in any way corroborate her stories.
>
What's the point -- or supposed point -- of the photo at the bottom.
I can't make heads or tails of it.
John McAdams
<rich...@jfkresearch.com> wrote:
>I have taken all the "evidence" Judyth sent me via email two years ago.
>
>I have placed it on the web at: http://www.jfkresearch.com/judyth/
>
>It's not much and IMO does not in any way corroborate her stories.
>
Jerry Shinley first noticed this, but I'd like to see it addressed
directly by Judyth's supporters.
If the spooks set her up for the job at Reily, why did she have to pay
the A-1 Employment Agency?
http://www.jfkresearch.com/judyth/judyth7.jpg
Martin Shackelford
explaining them--which makes it look more like it wasn't evidence. Rich
is no dummy.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
bill her for the full fee (a week's pay), taking credit for getting her
the job. Oswald, as a birthday present, got them to cut the fee in
half--you'll notice that the check is for half the usual fee (look at
the A-1 agreement on the page), and that it is dated on her birthday,
May 15.
Martin
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Because A-1 noticed her using their phone to call Reily, and tried to
>bill her for the full fee (a week's pay), taking credit for getting her
>the job. Oswald, as a birthday present, got them to cut the fee in
>half--you'll notice that the check is for half the usual fee (look at
>the A-1 agreement on the page), and that it is dated on her birthday,
>May 15.
Martin, this sounds sooooo flaky I'm surprised you could type it
without severe pain...ouch.
Nevermind one might wonder that if the Reily job was some sort of put
up cover deal, what the hell was she doing in an employment agency in
the first place ... why a circled newspaper ad ... why would an
employment agency give her the name of a company before they had a
signed contract with her ... and then let her use their phone to make
the call which she would be stupid to do from their office anyway ...
plus the agency would have had a signed deal with Reilly ... and once
so burned they cave to white knight Oswald ....... and the check isn't
half of the paycheck shown anyway .....oooo .... big ouch.
Dave Reitzes
>That's because he deleted the texts Judyth sent along with each exhibit,
>explaining them--which makes it look more like it wasn't evidence. Rich
>is no dummy.
>
>Martin
But Martin doesn't tell us what that magical text said!
There's ALWAYS an excuse!
Dave
>John McAdams wrote:
>
>> On 13 Aug 2004 23:46:57 -0400, Rich DellaRosa
>> <rich...@jfkresearch.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have taken all the "evidence" Judyth sent me via email two years ago.
>>>
>>>I have placed it on the web at: http://www.jfkresearch.com/judyth/
>>>
>>>It's not much and IMO does not in any way corroborate her stories.
>>>
>>
>>
>> What's the point -- or supposed point -- of the photo at the bottom.
>> I can't make heads or tails of it.
>>
>> .John
Dave Reitzes
>Because A-1 noticed her using their phone to call Reily,
Why was she using their phone to call Reily?
and tried to
>bill her for the full fee (a week's pay), taking credit for getting her
>the job.
What was she doing at A-1 in the first place?
Oswald, as a birthday present, got them to cut the fee in
>half--you'll notice that the check is for half the usual fee (look at
>the A-1 agreement on the page), and that it is dated on her birthday,
>May 15.
>
>Martin
And your evidence that Oswald did this is . . . ?
>John McAdams wrote:
>
>> On 13 Aug 2004 23:46:57 -0400, Rich DellaRosa
>> <rich...@jfkresearch.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have taken all the "evidence" Judyth sent me via email two years ago.
>>>
>>>I have placed it on the web at: http://www.jfkresearch.com/judyth/
>>>
>>>It's not much and IMO does not in any way corroborate her stories.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Jerry Shinley first noticed this, but I'd like to see it addressed
>> directly by Judyth's supporters.
>>
>> If the spooks set her up for the job at Reily, why did she have to pay
>> the A-1 Employment Agency?
>>
>> http://www.jfkresearch.com/judyth/judyth7.jpg
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>Date: 8/12/2004 11:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>
>In an e-mail of October 7, 2000, Judyth wrote:
>
>
><QUOTE ON>------------------------------
>
>. . . [Dr. Canute] Michaelson gave my name to the CIA as one of the bright
>brains in the country, and from that time on, I had access to equipment,
>funds, you name it, as well as special training involving doctors who got
>trained at Oak Ridge. . . . In short--and i [sic] can fill in many
>details--I had gone through projects starting in indianapolis [sic] with
>my being, apparently, conscripted into service of the CIA. I sa[y]
>apparently because i [sic] was a minor, and my father may have signed
>papers for me. I signed a lot of them, but I did not even bother to read
>them.
>
><QUOTE OFF>----------------------------
>
>
>It goes without saying that anyone who'd save her Reily Coffee paystubs
>for forty years in order to prove her importance would also save copies of
>the papers she signed when she was "conscripted into service of the CIA."
>But if not, by now she has doubtless obtained copies via the Freedom of
>Information Act.
>
>Why doesn't Wim post these, I wonder.
>
>Dave
How quiet Martin's suddenly become!
How about you, Martin? Have you seen these documents? If so, why did you
tell us that Judyth was never employed by the CIA? And if not, why not?
Did Judyth's American Cream Dogs eat them?
Well, no matter -- the Freedom of Information Act can fix that. So tell us
about the status of your FOIA request, Martin. When was it filed and what
is your reference number?
AnthonyMarsh
>
> On 13 Aug 2004 23:46:57 -0400, Rich DellaRosa
> <rich...@jfkresearch.com> wrote:
>
> >I have taken all the "evidence" Judyth sent me via email two years ago.
> >
> >I have placed it on the web at: http://www.jfkresearch.com/judyth/
> >
> >It's not much and IMO does not in any way corroborate her stories.
> >
>
> Jerry Shinley first noticed this, but I'd like to see it addressed
> directly by Judyth's supporters.
>
> If the spooks set her up for the job at Reily, why did she have to pay
> the A-1 Employment Agency?
>
Tradecraft.
> http://www.jfkresearch.com/judyth/judyth7.jpg
>
> .John
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Martin Shackelford
agency happened to be the same one that worked for Reily Co., so when
they learned she was calling Reily, they tried to bill her for finding
her the job--they DIDN'T give her the name.
The check is half of the A-1 fee, Barb.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Paul Seaton
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:cfpiaa$9...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> She was at an employment agency to create a record of job search.
Why ?
Someone was going to be checking up on her ?
Who ? Why ?
The
> agency happened to be the same one that worked for Reily Co., so when
> they learned she was calling Reily,
How would they know who she was calling ?
Someone watched her fingers as she dialed & thought 'hey that's Reily's
number !! Bill this broad !! " ??
> they tried to bill her for finding
> her the job
How did they know she'd got the job at Reily ?
> --they DIDN'T give her the name.
> The check is half of the A-1 fee, Barb.
How come influential uber-operative LHO could only get the fee reduced to
HALF a week's money when A-1 had nothing at all to do with her getting the
job ?
Sounds to me like a hopelessly contrived story to give some 'interesting'
meaning to something thoroughly mundane.
Sound familiar??
Paul Seaton
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>She was at an employment agency to create a record of job search. The
>agency happened to be the same one that worked for Reily Co., so when
>they learned she was calling Reily, they tried to bill her for finding
>her the job--they DIDN'T give her the name.
>The check is half of the A-1 fee, Barb.
No offense, Martin, but this is ridiculous on its face. Create a
record of a job search .... give me a break ... and then she displays
an ad in the paper besides!
This is about the flakiest excuse/explanation I think I have heard
yet.
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
somewhere, Judyth's account has never identified her as a CIA employee,
but as someone involved with a CIA-sponsored project. There's nothing to
FOIA in that regard--and if there were, I wonder whether CIA personnel
records are even included in FOIA. Not that you care.
Her dogs never "ATE" anything, Dave, as you well know. They did minor
damage to a couple of things, but no evidence was lost as a result. I
know you guys want to hang on to that particular nonsense, so I assume
I'll be seeing it again from either you or McAdams.
Martin
Dave Reitzes
>The text, Dave, was among the posts John McAdams gave all of us.
>
>Martin
But, as always, you can't seem to simply post it right here, right now.
Dave
>Dave Reitzes wrote:
>
>>>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>>>
>>>That's because he deleted the texts Judyth sent along with each exhibit,
>>>explaining them--which makes it look more like it wasn't evidence. Rich
>>>is no dummy.
>>>
>>>Martin
Jerry Shinley
> Because A-1 noticed her using their phone to call Reily, and tried to
> bill her for the full fee (a week's pay),
This is, as far as I could read it, the fee schedule from
LHO's A1 Employment agreement in the WC vols:
CE 1951 23H754
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0393b.htm
"[...] schedule for permanent employment:
"Up to $149.99--30%; $150.00 thru $249.99--35%; $250.00 thru
$349.99--40%; %350.00 up 45% of applicants first full month's wages
received in cash from any salary, drawing account or commission. Where
applicant is paid at a weekly rate, a month's wages shall be computed
at 4 and 5 times the weekly rate, as authorized by the Commissioner
of Labor.
"2. It is agreed by the parties hereto that permanent employment
is procured employment lasting three or more consecutive and
continuous calendar months; amd that temporary employment is
procured employment terminated in less than three calendar months
by the employer."
Could you explain how the full fee would be a week's pay?
> taking credit for getting her
> the job. Oswald, as a birthday present, got them to cut the fee in
> half--you'll notice that the check is for half the usual fee (look at
> the A-1 agreement on the page), and that it is dated on her birthday,
> May 15.
The one referenced below is dated May 27th. Did you mistype?
Dave Reitzes
>Although I'm sure you can come up with an out-of-context quote from
>somewhere, Judyth's account has never identified her as a CIA employee,
>but as someone involved with a CIA-sponsored project.
Judyth Vary Baker, e-mail, October 6, 2000: "I knew important people, and
in indianapolis [sic] got conscripted into the CIA though [I] was just a
minor." Judyth Vary Baker, e-mail, October 7, 2000: ". . . [Dr. Canute]
Michaelson gave my name to the CIA as one of the bright brains in the
country, and from that time on, I had access to equipment, funds, you name
it, as well as special training involving doctors who got trained at Oak
Ridge. . . . In short--and i [sic] can fill in many details--I had gone
through projects starting in indianapolis [sic] with my being, apparently,
conscripted into service of the CIA. I sa[y] apparently because i [sic]
was a minor, and my father may have signed papers for me. I signed a lot
of them, but I did not even bother to read them." See also Judyth Vary
Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance: Outline of the
Conspiracy." Online at:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/alliance.pdf
There's nothing to
>FOIA in that regard--
How do you know?
and if there were, I wonder whether CIA personnel
>records are even included in FOIA.
Only one way to find out.
>Not that you care.
You're the one who's supposed to care about verifying Judyth's story,
Martin. If you don't care enough to take the most basic, obvious steps,
why should anyone else?
It sounds like you've already decided her story has no basis in fact.
>Her dogs never "ATE" anything, Dave, as you well know.
Okay, so where are those papers Judyth signed? Why do dodge the question,
Martin?
They did minor
>damage to a couple of things, but no evidence was lost as a result. I
>know you guys want to hang on to that particular nonsense, so I assume
>I'll be seeing it again from either you or McAdams.
>
>Martin
If Martin truly believed Judyth was telling the truth when she said she
was "conscripted" into the CIA and signed papers to that effect, why on
Earth would he not be seeking out copies of those papers?
But then again, why does Martin keep denying Judyth's very own words about
her "conscription" into the CIA?
Martin Shackelford
necessary to go through to satisfy his demand for a response "right
here, right now"--and of course, with all the time he seems to have
free, he wants someone ELSE to look for the posts, not him.
Martin
Dave Reitzes
>Dave would like us to forget the volume of material it would be
>necessary to go through to satisfy his demand for a response "right
>here, right now"--and of course, with all the time he seems to have
>free, he wants someone ELSE to look for the posts, not him.
>
>Martin
Excuses, excuses.
Martin always has some excuse or other.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Dave Reitzes
>Perhaps you missed the "may have," Dave.
>
>Martin
So Martin doesn't take Judyth's claims of CIA employment seriously enough
to actually investigate them.
Who can blame him? Obviously, Judyth herself knows what a waste of time it
would be, or else she'd have made the FOIA request herself.
Dave
John McAdams
> >
> >Martin
>
> So Martin doesn't take Judyth's claims of CIA employment seriously enough
> to actually investigate them.
>
> Who can blame him? Obviously, Judyth herself knows what a waste of time it
> would be, or else she'd have made the FOIA request herself.
>
Reminds me of the fact that Judyth claims to have at least one piece of
what she claims to be Lee's. A report from a bona fide questioned
documents expert saying that it *is* Lee's writing would be dynamite.
But after five years they *still* don't have it.
.John
--
Martin Shackelford
presume to be speaking with authority on the matter.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Jerry Shinley
> bill her for the full fee (a week's pay), taking credit for getting her
> the job. Oswald, as a birthday present, got them to cut the fee in
> half--you'll notice that the check is for half the usual fee (look at
> the A-1 agreement on the page), and that it is dated on her birthday,
> May 15.
The check referred to below is dated May 27th. Did you mistype above
when you said "May 15"?
There aren't two checks to A1, are there?
Jerry Shinley
Jerry Shinley
> bill her for the full fee (a week's pay), taking credit for getting her
> the job. Oswald, as a birthday present, got them to cut the fee in
> half--you'll notice that the check is for half the usual fee (look at
> the A-1 agreement on the page), and that it is dated on her birthday,
> May 15.
The check referred to below is dated May 27th. Did you mistype
when you wrote "May 15" above?
There aren't two checks to A1, are there?
Jerry Shinley
>
Dave Reitzes
>And you always have some demand or another. Expect more to be ignored.
>
>Martin
You'd think Martin would be more eager to explain Judyth's "evidence" --
you know, the "evidence" Martin howled and howled about Rich Della Rosa
"suppressing."
Looks like Martin knows full well how worthless this "evidence" is. But
you won't catch him candidly acknowledging it.
Martin Shackelford
away.
Martin