>See Dave Reitzes's posts below for a pretty good guess.
>Ken Rahn
And why is Ken Rahn apparently comfortable jumping to any sort of conclusion regarding these posts from Reitzes which anyone can see are merely trolls? :-0
> >See Dave Reitzes's posts below for a pretty good guess.
> >Ken Rahn
> And why is Ken Rahn apparently comfortable jumping to any sort of > conclusion regarding these posts from Reitzes which anyone can see are > merely trolls? :-0
I'm not sure that offering factual information should be considered trolling. Further, I said "pretty good guess."
>> >See Dave Reitzes's posts below for a pretty good guess.
>> >Ken Rahn
>> And why is Ken Rahn apparently comfortable jumping to any sort of >> conclusion regarding these posts from Reitzes which anyone can see are >> merely trolls? :-0
>I'm not sure that offering factual information should be considered >trolling. >Further, I said "pretty good guess."
>Ken Rahn
Ken, You are far too sophisticated a scholar to consider Reitzes posts 'factual information'. I am a bit surprised.
And yet, your support of them tends to confirm my hypothesis that the more running around in circles that's going on about Judyth's book, the more value it must have.
>>> >See Dave Reitzes's posts below for a pretty good guess.
>>> >Ken Rahn
>>> And why is Ken Rahn apparently comfortable jumping to any sort of >>> conclusion regarding these posts from Reitzes which anyone can see are >>> merely trolls? :-0
>>I'm not sure that offering factual information should be considered >>trolling. >>Further, I said "pretty good guess."
>>Ken Rahn
> Ken, > You are far too sophisticated a scholar to consider Reitzes posts > 'factual information'. I am a bit surprised.
Pamela, have you factually rebutted anything Reitzes has written? No. You pleaded with him to read the book first, then post. You, yourself, had no idea what the book contains. I also venture to think that you still don't.
> And yet, your support of them tends to confirm my hypothesis that the > more running around in circles that's going on about Judyth's book, > the more value it must have.
More speculation without reading the book, which is essentially what you've been a critic of.
>>>> >See Dave Reitzes's posts below for a pretty good guess.
>>>> >Ken Rahn
>>>> And why is Ken Rahn apparently comfortable jumping to any sort of >>>> conclusion regarding these posts from Reitzes which anyone can see are >>>> merely trolls? :-0
>>>I'm not sure that offering factual information should be considered >>>trolling. >>>Further, I said "pretty good guess."
>>>Ken Rahn
>> Ken, >> You are far too sophisticated a scholar to consider Reitzes posts >> 'factual information'. I am a bit surprised.
>Pamela, have you factually rebutted anything Reitzes has written? No. You >pleaded with him to read the book first, then post. You, yourself, had no >idea what the book contains. I also venture to think that you still don't.
Oh, thanks for jumping into the thread and making my point for me. Reitzes has not read the book either, and yet is comfortable making misstatements about Judyth and publishing them as 'fact' in such a way that even Ken seems to have bought in on it.
I hope I have a good working knowledge of Judyth's statements and of the environment of NOLA in the summer of 63, as I have been researching them for the last year or so. Anyone could do that through the information already available. One would have to be hopelessly naive not to see the distortions Reitzes pages present.
>> And yet, your support of them tends to confirm my hypothesis that the >> more running around in circles that's going on about Judyth's book, >> the more value it must have.
>More speculation without reading the book, which is essentially what >you've been a critic of.
Indeed, I am discussing the reaction of this ng to the publication of Judyth's book. Ken has not read it, and is comfortable supporting Reitzes erroneous pages. You have at least looked at its covers and have yet to post on its contents, saying that you need more time. and yet you seem to have lots of time to post here...
>>>>> >See Dave Reitzes's posts below for a pretty good guess.
>>>>> >Ken Rahn
>>>>> And why is Ken Rahn apparently comfortable jumping to any sort of >>>>> conclusion regarding these posts from Reitzes which anyone can see are >>>>> merely trolls? :-0
>>>>I'm not sure that offering factual information should be considered >>>>trolling. >>>>Further, I said "pretty good guess."
>>>>Ken Rahn
>>> Ken, >>> You are far too sophisticated a scholar to consider Reitzes posts >>> 'factual information'. I am a bit surprised.
>>Pamela, have you factually rebutted anything Reitzes has written? No. You >>pleaded with him to read the book first, then post. You, yourself, had no >>idea what the book contains. I also venture to think that you still don't.
>Oh, thanks for jumping into the thread and making my point for me. >Reitzes has not read the book either, and yet is comfortable making >misstatements about Judyth and publishing them as 'fact' in such a way >that even Ken seems to have bought in on it.
>I hope I have a good working knowledge of Judyth's statements and of >the environment of NOLA in the summer of 63, as I have been >researching them for the last year or so. Anyone could do that >through the information already available. One would have to be >hopelessly naive not to see the distortions Reitzes pages present.
>>> And yet, your support of them tends to confirm my hypothesis that the >>> more running around in circles that's going on about Judyth's book, >>> the more value it must have.
>>More speculation without reading the book, which is essentially what >>you've been a critic of.
>Indeed, I am discussing the reaction of this ng to the publication of >Judyth's book. Ken has not read it, and is comfortable supporting >Reitzes erroneous pages. You have at least looked at its covers and >have yet to post on its contents, saying that you need more time. and >yet you seem to have lots of time to post here...
>>>>>>>See Dave Reitzes's posts below for a pretty good guess.
>>>>>>>Ken Rahn
>>>>>>And why is Ken Rahn apparently comfortable jumping to any sort of >>>>>>conclusion regarding these posts from Reitzes which anyone can see are >>>>>>merely trolls? :-0
>>>>>I'm not sure that offering factual information should be considered >>>>>trolling. >>>>>Further, I said "pretty good guess."
>>>>>Ken Rahn
>>>>Ken, >>>>You are far too sophisticated a scholar to consider Reitzes posts >>>>'factual information'. I am a bit surprised.
>>>Pamela, have you factually rebutted anything Reitzes has written? No. You >>>pleaded with him to read the book first, then post. You, yourself, had no >>>idea what the book contains. I also venture to think that you still don't.
>>Oh, thanks for jumping into the thread and making my point for me. >>Reitzes has not read the book either, and yet is comfortable making >>misstatements about Judyth and publishing them as 'fact' in such a way >>that even Ken seems to have bought in on it.
>>I hope I have a good working knowledge of Judyth's statements and of >>the environment of NOLA in the summer of 63, as I have been >>researching them for the last year or so. Anyone could do that >>through the information already available. One would have to be >>hopelessly naive not to see the distortions Reitzes pages present.
>>>>And yet, your support of them tends to confirm my hypothesis that the >>>>more running around in circles that's going on about Judyth's book, >>>>the more value it must have.
>>>More speculation without reading the book, which is essentially what >>>you've been a critic of.
>>Indeed, I am discussing the reaction of this ng to the publication of >>Judyth's book. Ken has not read it, and is comfortable supporting >>Reitzes erroneous pages. You have at least looked at its covers and >>have yet to post on its contents, saying that you need more time. and >>yet you seem to have lots of time to post here...
>>>>>>>>See Dave Reitzes's posts below for a pretty good guess.
>>>>>>>>Ken Rahn
>>>>>>>And why is Ken Rahn apparently comfortable jumping to any sort of >>>>>>>conclusion regarding these posts from Reitzes which anyone can see are >>>>>>>merely trolls? :-0
>>>>>>I'm not sure that offering factual information should be considered >>>>>>trolling. >>>>>>Further, I said "pretty good guess."
>>>>>>Ken Rahn
>>>>>Ken, >>>>>You are far too sophisticated a scholar to consider Reitzes posts >>>>>'factual information'. I am a bit surprised.
>>>>Pamela, have you factually rebutted anything Reitzes has written? No. You >>>>pleaded with him to read the book first, then post. You, yourself, had no >>>>idea what the book contains. I also venture to think that you still don't.
>>>Oh, thanks for jumping into the thread and making my point for me. >>>Reitzes has not read the book either, and yet is comfortable making >>>misstatements about Judyth and publishing them as 'fact' in such a way >>>that even Ken seems to have bought in on it.
>>>I hope I have a good working knowledge of Judyth's statements and of >>>the environment of NOLA in the summer of 63, as I have been >>>researching them for the last year or so. Anyone could do that >>>through the information already available. One would have to be >>>hopelessly naive not to see the distortions Reitzes pages present.
>>>>>And yet, your support of them tends to confirm my hypothesis that the >>>>>more running around in circles that's going on about Judyth's book, >>>>>the more value it must have.
>>>>More speculation without reading the book, which is essentially what >>>>you've been a critic of.
>>>Indeed, I am discussing the reaction of this ng to the publication of >>>Judyth's book. Ken has not read it, and is comfortable supporting >>>Reitzes erroneous pages. You have at least looked at its covers and >>>have yet to post on its contents, saying that you need more time. and >>>yet you seem to have lots of time to post here...
>Pamela, could you list some of the "distortions" you've noted on >Reitzes "erroneous pages"?
>Thanks, >Barb :-)
This is an open opportunity for Pamela to help move things forward....as she likes to say and likes to say she'll ignore anything that doesn't move things forward.
Here's a chance to make a real contribution to discussion and to move things forward.
>>>>>> >See Dave Reitzes's posts below for a pretty good guess.
>>>>>> >Ken Rahn
>>>>>> And why is Ken Rahn apparently comfortable jumping to any sort of >>>>>> conclusion regarding these posts from Reitzes which anyone can see are >>>>>> merely trolls? :-0
>>>>>I'm not sure that offering factual information should be considered >>>>>trolling. >>>>>Further, I said "pretty good guess."
>>>>>Ken Rahn
>>>> Ken, >>>> You are far too sophisticated a scholar to consider Reitzes posts >>>> 'factual information'. I am a bit surprised.
>>>Pamela, have you factually rebutted anything Reitzes has written? No. You >>>pleaded with him to read the book first, then post. You, yourself, had no >>>idea what the book contains. I also venture to think that you still don't.
>>Oh, thanks for jumping into the thread and making my point for me. >>Reitzes has not read the book either, and yet is comfortable making >>misstatements about Judyth and publishing them as 'fact' in such a way >>that even Ken seems to have bought in on it.
>>I hope I have a good working knowledge of Judyth's statements and of >>the environment of NOLA in the summer of 63, as I have been >>researching them for the last year or so. Anyone could do that >>through the information already available. One would have to be >>hopelessly naive not to see the distortions Reitzes pages present.
>>>> And yet, your support of them tends to confirm my hypothesis that the >>>> more running around in circles that's going on about Judyth's book, >>>> the more value it must have.
>>>More speculation without reading the book, which is essentially what >>>you've been a critic of.
>>Indeed, I am discussing the reaction of this ng to the publication of >>Judyth's book. Ken has not read it, and is comfortable supporting >>Reitzes erroneous pages. You have at least looked at its covers and >>have yet to post on its contents, saying that you need more time. and >>yet you seem to have lots of time to post here...
> >>>>>>>See Dave Reitzes's posts below for a pretty good guess.
> >>>>>>>Ken Rahn
> >>>>>>And why is Ken Rahn apparently comfortable jumping to any sort of > >>>>>>conclusion regarding these posts from Reitzes which anyone can see are > >>>>>>merely trolls? :-0
> >>>>>I'm not sure that offering factual information should be considered > >>>>>trolling. > >>>>>Further, I said "pretty good guess."
> >>>>>Ken Rahn
> >>>>Ken, > >>>>You are far too sophisticated a scholar to consider Reitzes posts > >>>>'factual information'. I am a bit surprised.
> >>>Pamela, have you factually rebutted anything Reitzes has written? No. You > >>>pleaded with him to read the book first, then post. You, yourself, had no > >>>idea what the book contains. I also venture to think that you still don't.
> >>Oh, thanks for jumping into the thread and making my point for me. > >>Reitzes has not read the book either, and yet is comfortable making > >>misstatements about Judyth and publishing them as 'fact' in such a way > >>that even Ken seems to have bought in on it.
> >>I hope I have a good working knowledge of Judyth's statements and of > >>the environment of NOLA in the summer of 63, as I have been > >>researching them for the last year or so. Anyone could do that > >>through the information already available. One would have to be > >>hopelessly naive not to see the distortions Reitzes pages present.
> >>>>And yet, your support of them tends to confirm my hypothesis that the > >>>>more running around in circles that's going on about Judyth's book, > >>>>the more value it must have.
> >>>More speculation without reading the book, which is essentially what > >>>you've been a critic of.
> >>Indeed, I am discussing the reaction of this ng to the publication of > >>Judyth's book. Ken has not read it, and is comfortable supporting > >>Reitzes erroneous pages. You have at least looked at its covers and > >>have yet to post on its contents, saying that you need more time. and > >>yet you seem to have lots of time to post here...
>>Pamela, could you list some of the "distortions" you've noted on >>Reitzes "erroneous pages"?
>>Thanks, >>Barb :-)
>This is an open opportunity for Pamela to help move things >forward....as she likes to say and likes to say she'll ignore anything >that doesn't move things forward.
>Here's a chance to make a real contribution to discussion and to move >things forward.
>Will she take it?
>I'm guessing no.
>Prove me wrong, Pamela.
>Barb :-)
How could anyone prove you wrong, Barb? I don't have the time that you seem to have and the number of words I've posted on aaj is a mere fraction of what you have managed to contribute.
Reitzes pages are label Judyth a 'hoax'. Are we not able to grab a clue from that as to his orientation?
>>>Pamela, could you list some of the "distortions" you've noted on >>>Reitzes "erroneous pages"?
>>>Thanks, >>>Barb :-)
>>This is an open opportunity for Pamela to help move things >>forward....as she likes to say and likes to say she'll ignore anything >>that doesn't move things forward.
>>Here's a chance to make a real contribution to discussion and to move >>things forward.
>>Will she take it?
>>I'm guessing no.
>>Prove me wrong, Pamela.
>>Barb :-)
>How could anyone prove you wrong, Barb? I don't have the time that >you seem to have and the number of words I've posted on aaj is a mere >fraction of what you have managed to contribute.
>Reitzes pages are label Judyth a 'hoax'. Are we not able to grab a >clue from that as to his orientation?
>Reitzes takes a lot of his information from the notorious McAdams >pages which have been discussed repeatedly here.
>What, may we ask, do you find so compelling about them?
>Pamela
Haven't read them actually. But it's your claims I am interested in and asked about. Imagine my surprise when you did the dip, dive and divert rather than "moving discussion forward" by actually naming the "distortions" you see on the "erroneous pages" .... NOT. As predicted.
>>>>> >See Dave Reitzes's posts below for a pretty good guess.
>>>>> >Ken Rahn
>>>>> And why is Ken Rahn apparently comfortable jumping to any sort of >>>>> conclusion regarding these posts from Reitzes which anyone can see are >>>>> merely trolls? :-0
>>>>I'm not sure that offering factual information should be considered >>>>trolling. >>>>Further, I said "pretty good guess."
>>>>Ken Rahn
>>> Ken, >>> You are far too sophisticated a scholar to consider Reitzes posts >>> 'factual information'. I am a bit surprised.
>>Pamela, have you factually rebutted anything Reitzes has written? No. You >>pleaded with him to read the book first, then post. You, yourself, had no >>idea what the book contains. I also venture to think that you still don't.
> Oh, thanks for jumping into the thread and making my point for me.
Someone had to.
> Reitzes has not read the book either, and yet is comfortable making > misstatements about Judyth and publishing them as 'fact' in such a way > that even Ken seems to have bought in on it.
Several researchers had read an initial draft and had read many of her emails and claims through various sources, Pamela. His critique is based on Judyth's own words, from her own mouth (or hands).
> I hope I have a good working knowledge of Judyth's statements and of > the environment of NOLA in the summer of 63, as I have been > researching them for the last year or so. Anyone could do that > through the information already available.
Yep, which she has also done a ton of...
One would have to be
> hopelessly naive not to see the distortions Reitzes pages present.
Name 3 distortions and explain why they are distortions without using Judyth's words as testimony to the fact.
>>> And yet, your support of them tends to confirm my hypothesis that the >>> more running around in circles that's going on about Judyth's book, >>> the more value it must have.
>>More speculation without reading the book, which is essentially what >>you've been a critic of.
> Indeed, I am discussing the reaction of this ng to the publication of > Judyth's book.
No, you're complaining about Dave's webpage, using the book's publishing as a crutch in this post.
Ken has not read it, and is comfortable supporting
> Reitzes erroneous pages.
Name the errors.
You have at least looked at its covers and
> have yet to post on its contents,
I have, but not much. There are some things that I won't discuss yet.
saying that you need more time. and
> yet you seem to have lots of time to post here...
Yes. Book at home. NG at work. 700 pages takes lots of time (plus 1353 source notes), typing a post doesn't. Funny that you equate the two very different things.
>>>Pamela, could you list some of the "distortions" you've noted on >>>Reitzes "erroneous pages"?
>>>Thanks, >>>Barb :-)
>>This is an open opportunity for Pamela to help move things >>forward....as she likes to say and likes to say she'll ignore anything >>that doesn't move things forward.
>>Here's a chance to make a real contribution to discussion and to move >>things forward.
>>Will she take it?
>>I'm guessing no.
>>Prove me wrong, Pamela.
>>Barb :-)
> How could anyone prove you wrong, Barb?
Yeah, don't try.
> I don't have the time that > you seem to have and the number of words I've posted on aaj is a mere > fraction of what you have managed to contribute.
Yet you have time to post...which is the argument you tried on me.
> Reitzes pages are label Judyth a 'hoax'. Are we not able to grab a > clue from that as to his orientation?
> Reitzes takes a lot of his information from the notorious McAdams > pages which have been discussed repeatedly here.
Which are often backed up with source notes, emails, etc. - the same type of stuff you can find in Judyth's book!...but McA's is bad, Judyth's good, eh?
> What, may we ask, do you find so compelling about them?
She asked YOU the question and you don't want to apparently research any of them. So, to shorten the load, you're asking her to make a list for you to refute.
This is completely off-topic, Barb. Pamela and I were both talking about the old garbage on Dave Reitzes' webpages--not about the book. What is your problem?
>>>>>>>>>See Dave Reitzes's posts below for a pretty good guess.
>>>>>>>>>Ken Rahn
>>>>>>>>And why is Ken Rahn apparently comfortable jumping to any sort of >>>>>>>>conclusion regarding these posts from Reitzes which anyone can see are >>>>>>>>merely trolls? :-0
>>>>>>>I'm not sure that offering factual information should be considered >>>>>>>trolling. >>>>>>>Further, I said "pretty good guess."
>>>>>>>Ken Rahn
>>>>>>Ken, >>>>>>You are far too sophisticated a scholar to consider Reitzes posts >>>>>>'factual information'. I am a bit surprised.
>>>>>Pamela, have you factually rebutted anything Reitzes has written? No. You >>>>>pleaded with him to read the book first, then post. You, yourself, had no >>>>>idea what the book contains. I also venture to think that you still don't.
>>>>Oh, thanks for jumping into the thread and making my point for me. >>>>Reitzes has not read the book either, and yet is comfortable making >>>>misstatements about Judyth and publishing them as 'fact' in such a way >>>>that even Ken seems to have bought in on it.
>>>>I hope I have a good working knowledge of Judyth's statements and of >>>>the environment of NOLA in the summer of 63, as I have been >>>>researching them for the last year or so. Anyone could do that >>>>through the information already available. One would have to be >>>>hopelessly naive not to see the distortions Reitzes pages present.
>>>>>>And yet, your support of them tends to confirm my hypothesis that the >>>>>>more running around in circles that's going on about Judyth's book, >>>>>>the more value it must have.
>>>>>More speculation without reading the book, which is essentially what >>>>>you've been a critic of.
>>>>Indeed, I am discussing the reaction of this ng to the publication of >>>>Judyth's book. Ken has not read it, and is comfortable supporting >>>>Reitzes erroneous pages. You have at least looked at its covers and >>>>have yet to post on its contents, saying that you need more time. and >>>>yet you seem to have lots of time to post here...
>>Pamela, could you list some of the "distortions" you've noted on >>Reitzes "erroneous pages"?
>>Thanks, >>Barb :-)
> This is an open opportunity for Pamela to help move things > forward....as she likes to say and likes to say she'll ignore anything > that doesn't move things forward.
> Here's a chance to make a real contribution to discussion and to move > things forward.
>>>>>>>>See Dave Reitzes's posts below for a pretty good guess.
>>>>>>>>Ken Rahn
>>>>>>>And why is Ken Rahn apparently comfortable jumping to any sort of >>>>>>>conclusion regarding these posts from Reitzes which anyone can see are >>>>>>>merely trolls? :-0
>>>>>>I'm not sure that offering factual information should be considered >>>>>>trolling. >>>>>>Further, I said "pretty good guess."
>>>>>>Ken Rahn
>>>>>Ken, >>>>>You are far too sophisticated a scholar to consider Reitzes posts >>>>>'factual information'. I am a bit surprised.
>>>>Pamela, have you factually rebutted anything Reitzes has written? No. You >>>>pleaded with him to read the book first, then post. You, yourself, had no >>>>idea what the book contains. I also venture to think that you still don't.
>>>Oh, thanks for jumping into the thread and making my point for me. >>>Reitzes has not read the book either, and yet is comfortable making >>>misstatements about Judyth and publishing them as 'fact' in such a way >>>that even Ken seems to have bought in on it.
>>>I hope I have a good working knowledge of Judyth's statements and of >>>the environment of NOLA in the summer of 63, as I have been >>>researching them for the last year or so. Anyone could do that >>>through the information already available. One would have to be >>>hopelessly naive not to see the distortions Reitzes pages present.
>>>>>And yet, your support of them tends to confirm my hypothesis that the >>>>>more running around in circles that's going on about Judyth's book, >>>>>the more value it must have.
>>>>More speculation without reading the book, which is essentially what >>>>you've been a critic of.
>>>Indeed, I am discussing the reaction of this ng to the publication of >>>Judyth's book. Ken has not read it, and is comfortable supporting >>>Reitzes erroneous pages. You have at least looked at its covers and >>>have yet to post on its contents, saying that you need more time. and >>>yet you seem to have lots of time to post here...
"Several researchers had read an initial draft" of her book? Name one, Chad. I recall an uncorrected piece of a chapter being slipped to McAdams, but that hardly fits your description. None of her attackers ever read "an initial draft" of her book. Not one. As for "several researchers" having read "many of her e-mails," a few of her attackers selectively slipped a handful out-of-context e-mails to McAdams--but even fewer than one would suppose, as many of the "Judyth e-mails" turn out to be e-mails from OTHER people paraphrasing what they claim to have heard from her--not even quotes. Perhaps this is what you mean by "claims from various sources." To claim the paraphrases and out-of-context material as using "Judyth's own words" isn't even TECHNICALLY correct as to the paraphrases. You want to know what some of the distortions are on Retizes' web page? OK: 1) The title is a distortion:"Judyth Vary Baker: The Story So Far (According to Judyth Vary Baker, Martin Shackelford, and Howard Platzman, Ph.D.)" The article doesn't represent an accurate picture of what Judyth, Howard or I have said at all. 2) It refers to the outline which Howard worked on as an ongoing project, and implies that it is the manuscript of her book--but Howard did not co-author her book. They worked at one time on a draft together, but no one here has ever quoted from it, so it's a good bet they've never read it. Judyth made comments on each draft, but didn't "co-author" any of them. 3) Reitzes cites Howard as describing me as Judyth's "lead researcher." I attempted to looked up Howard's cited e-mail of September 22, 2002 in the Google archive, but Google found NO postings by Howard for that month to alt.assassination.jfk This may be an error, but it makes it difficult to check the context--and Reitzes doesn't quote the e-mail, but offers his own paraphrase of it. I have never been Judyth's "lead researcher" in any sense connected with the writing of her book. 4) He cites as "one of her contradictions" that she said she worked on a CIA anti-Castro project, and then said she wasn't a CIA employee. Apparently people not CIA employees never work on CIA-related projects, in Dave's mind. 5) He cites an another contradiction that she said she spoke some Russian when she was "introduced" to Lee Harvey Oswald, and that she met Oswald through a series of events connected with Dr. Sherman. Anyone who has read the book knows there is no contradiction here. There is a long string of false alleged "contradictions." He manages to find FOUR "contradictory versions" on this subject, by taking things out of context. 6) Another "contradiction" is that Oswald worked by the CIA, but wasn't a CIA employee--same problem as in number 4--he worked for another agency and was used by the CIA. 7) Another "contradiction" is the statement that she and Oswald seem to appear in the same film frame, and that she and Oswald "don't appear in a photograph together.) No photograph of "Oswald and Judyth together" exists, but a film frame does seem to show Judyth in the area when Oswald did his second leafletting--no one has ever claimed that the frame shows "Judyth standing next to Oswald," as Dave claims. If it wasn't Judyth, it was someone of similar build and hair wearing a dress in a pattern that Judyth owned. He adds, AS A CONTRADICTION, that there was a photo of Judyth and Oswald together which no longer exists. There is no contradiction there at all. 8) He includes a "contradiction" that her husband may have been given a job that kept him away, and then that he SOUGHT the job. The problem here is one of chronology--in the first instance, she was speculating, and in the second, she LATER ran across a letter from Robert to the company requesting the job, which changed her mind on the subject. He tries to turn this one into FOUR contradictions. 9) Another "contradiction" is the statement that she met Jack Ruby once, and that she also SAW him at the 500 Club. Reitzes pretends that SEEING him at a club is the same as having a second "meeting" with him, although they had no interaction at the Club, and there is no indication that Ruby even saw HER on that occasion. He pulls a similar dodge in connection with Guy Banister, and with Clay Shaw, and with Carlos Marcello. 10) Dave really outdoes himself on the subject of David Atlee Phillips--he tries to turn the matter into TWENTY-FOUR separate contradictions, which is an exercise in pure absurdity. That covers 52 of his 114 "points," and is enough time wasted on this. Much of this has been pointed out in the past, but it doesn't seem to have made a dent in some of the harder heads here.
>>>>>>>See Dave Reitzes's posts below for a pretty good guess.
>>>>>>>Ken Rahn
>>>>>>And why is Ken Rahn apparently comfortable jumping to any sort of >>>>>>conclusion regarding these posts from Reitzes which anyone can see are >>>>>>merely trolls? :-0
>>>>>I'm not sure that offering factual information should be considered >>>>>trolling. >>>>>Further, I said "pretty good guess."
>>>>>Ken Rahn
>>>>Ken, >>>>You are far too sophisticated a scholar to consider Reitzes posts >>>>'factual information'. I am a bit surprised.
>>>Pamela, have you factually rebutted anything Reitzes has written? No. You >>>pleaded with him to read the book first, then post. You, yourself, had no >>>idea what the book contains. I also venture to think that you still don't.
>>Oh, thanks for jumping into the thread and making my point for me.
> Someone had to.
>>Reitzes has not read the book either, and yet is comfortable making >>misstatements about Judyth and publishing them as 'fact' in such a way >>that even Ken seems to have bought in on it.
> Several researchers had read an initial draft and had read many of her > emails > and claims through various sources, Pamela. His critique is based on > Judyth's own > words, from her own mouth (or hands).
>>I hope I have a good working knowledge of Judyth's statements and of >>the environment of NOLA in the summer of 63, as I have been >>researching them for the last year or so. Anyone could do that >>through the information already available.
> Yep, which she has also done a ton of...
> One would have to be
>>hopelessly naive not to see the distortions Reitzes pages present.
> Name 3 distortions and explain why they are distortions without using > Judyth's words > as testimony to the fact.
>>>>And yet, your support of them tends to confirm my hypothesis that the >>>>more running around in circles that's going on about Judyth's book, >>>>the more value it must have.
>>>More speculation without reading the book, which is essentially what >>>you've been a critic of.
>>Indeed, I am discussing the reaction of this ng to the publication of >>Judyth's book.
> No, you're complaining about Dave's webpage, using the book's publishing as > a crutch in this post.
> Ken has not read it, and is comfortable supporting
>>Reitzes erroneous pages.
> Name the errors.
> You have at least looked at its covers and
>>have yet to post on its contents,
> I have, but not much. There are some things that I won't discuss yet.
> saying that you need more time. and
>>yet you seem to have lots of time to post here...
> Yes. Book at home. NG at work. 700 pages takes lots of time (plus 1353 > source notes), typing > a post doesn't. Funny that you equate the two very different things.
Dave Reitzes' nonsense has been discussed to death in the past. I won't waste any more time on his mean-spirited, distorted web pages. They are propaganda, pure and simple.
