Is Judyth's story completely debunked?
Peter Fokes
I also spoke briefly about Judyth with John McAdams, who runs a
Kennedy Assassination Web site. Although he, too, said that without
more evidence, he couldn't debunk her claim completely, he ventured
that it "comes out of nowhere" and that "on the face of it, it's
utterly absurd." According to McAdams, David Ferrie and Mary Sherman
have never been linked and Judyth's "exceedingly implausible" story
seems to be "inconsistent with a lot of things we know about Lee,"
including evidence that he was faithful to Marina..
<quote off>
I wonder if John now is prepared to go further and state that Judyth's
story is debunked completely.
PF
Peter Fokes
I neglected to mention the quote above is from a Salon article
entitled Love on the Grassy Knoll? by Amy Reiter on April 22, 1999.
Interesting to note that Amy says Judyth once dabbled with becoming a
nun: I "almost became a nun of the order of St. Francis."
She may have had more luck and supporters if she had become a wacky
anti-evolution theorist!
PF
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<justplai...@rogers.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:30:25 -0500, Peter Fokes
><justplai...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>><quote on>
>>
>>I also spoke briefly about Judyth with John McAdams, who runs a
>>Kennedy Assassination Web site. Although he, too, said that without
>>more evidence, he couldn't debunk her claim completely, he ventured
>>that it "comes out of nowhere" and that "on the face of it, it's
>>utterly absurd." According to McAdams, David Ferrie and Mary Sherman
>>have never been linked and Judyth's "exceedingly implausible" story
>>seems to be "inconsistent with a lot of things we know about Lee,"
>>including evidence that he was faithful to Marina..
>>
>><quote off>
>>
>>I wonder if John now is prepared to go further and state that Judyth's
>>story is debunked completely.
>>
>>PF
>
>I neglected to mention the quote above is from a Salon article
>entitled Love on the Grassy Knoll? by Amy Reiter on April 22, 1999.
>
>Interesting to note that Amy says Judyth once dabbled with becoming a
>nun: I "almost became a nun of the order of St. Francis."
I thought she said she wasn't Catholic ... this from when she was
claiming that a maverick priest was going to grant them quickie
divorces from their spouses ... nevermind that priests (nor anyone in
the church, in any church) have no legal standing to grant divorces
.... which shows how much she even knows about the church. A nun,
eh...
Barb :-)
Pamela McElwain-Brown
<justplai...@rogers.com> wrote:
For one thing, I don't see how that would be possible. Judyth worked
at Reily. Lee worked at Reily. Judyth is a witness to LHO in NO in
the summer of 1963.
As far as specific statements, .John has misrepresented just about
everything Judyth said in his propaganda tract. All that would have
'debunked' would have been the strawmen .John set up.
Pamela
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet,
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
"Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" airs on the SPEED cable channel. Here is a link to the
schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/ More at www.jfk100x.com.
"The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night", a new essay on "the SBT" is at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372.
Scroll down the main Ed Forum page to"Assassination of JFK", click on "JFK Online Seminars", and you will find my essay, plus many others.
Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and a backup of www.jfk100x.com please join jfk100x at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk100x/ (Yahoo Groups).
For information about my life away from research, visit www.themagicflute.org
John McAdams
<justplai...@rogers.com> wrote:
Yes.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:30:25 -0500, Peter Fokes
><justplai...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>><quote on>
>>
>>I also spoke briefly about Judyth with John McAdams, who runs a
>>Kennedy Assassination Web site. Although he, too, said that without
>>more evidence, he couldn't debunk her claim completely, he ventured
>>that it "comes out of nowhere" and that "on the face of it, it's
>>utterly absurd." According to McAdams, David Ferrie and Mary Sherman
>>have never been linked and Judyth's "exceedingly implausible" story
>>seems to be "inconsistent with a lot of things we know about Lee,"
>>including evidence that he was faithful to Marina..
>>
>><quote off>
>>
>>I wonder if John now is prepared to go further and state that Judyth's
>>story is debunked completely.
>>
>>PF
>>
>
>For one thing, I don't see how that would be possible. Judyth worked
>at Reily. Lee worked at Reily. Judyth is a witness to LHO in NO in
>the summer of 1963.
>
>As far as specific statements, .John has misrepresented just about
>everything Judyth said in his propaganda tract. All that would have
>'debunked' would have been the strawmen .John set up.
>
People can read her statements, Pamela:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
Correction: People can read your misrepresentations of her
statements. Those are your strawmen .John.
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
No, Pamela ... Judyth's own words/explanations/twists and turns that
have been posted aplenty speak for themselves. In that respect she is
her own worst enemy.
Since you claim misrepresentations .... give an example, please. :-)
Let's see if you are correct. John, like anyone, is entitled to his
own opinions on whatever Judyth has said .... but it's her own words
that are the problem as far as most see it.
Let's see what you are talking about as a misrepresentation.
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
sticking to the opinion he formed when he knew nothing at all.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
1999 Salon article, before John really knew ANYTHING about Judyth's
account, i.e., when he knew even LESS than the little he knows now, yet
his opinion was already formed.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
John. You never seem to grasp that.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
was, instead, an e-mail from Louis Girdler CLAIMING Judyth said something.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
1) material written by her agent
2) material written by Howard Platzman
3) claimed statements that cite an e-mail from Louis Girdler, not Judyth.
etc.
Martin
Dr Truth
news:csq7gq$b...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> But she chose the harder road of integrity.
>
> Martin
LOL...now THAT is funny.
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Well, we've cited plenty of examples in the past--attributing to Judyth:
>1) material written by her agent
So Judyth claims.
>2) material written by Howard Platzman
So y'all claim.
>3) claimed statements that cite an e-mail from Louis Girdler, not Judyth.
>etc.
Are you accusing Louis of having forged/misrepresented an e-mail from
Judyth?
Barb :-)
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>John still has no clue how little he knows, but he has no hesitation
>sticking to the opinion he formed when he knew nothing at all.
>
Martin claims I know "little," but anybody can find that I have a
massive collection of JUDYTH'S OWN STATEMENTS:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
Is Martin claiming to have some secret inside knowledge that shows
Judyth's account to be plausible?
If so, he needs to explain why the things that she has been telling
people are so wacky.
Has she been telling tall tales to them, Martin, and telling you the
truth?
If so, why?
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>I think, by the way, that is is telling that this appeared in the Spring
>1999 Salon article, before John really knew ANYTHING about Judyth's
>account, i.e., when he knew even LESS than the little he knows now, yet
>his opinion was already formed.
>
My opinion at the time was that the story was implausible. I knew
that it was somebody who claimed to Oswald's girlfriend in New
Orleans.
I knew that there was no evidence of any such thing, and I knew that
crackpots come forward to claim to have been part of the assassination
story.
That was a solid assessment at the time, and the development of the
story had borne me out.
>Martin
>
>Peter Fokes wrote:
>
>> <quote on>
>>
>> I also spoke briefly about Judyth with John McAdams, who runs a
>> Kennedy Assassination Web site. Although he, too, said that without
>> more evidence, he couldn't debunk her claim completely, he ventured
>> that it "comes out of nowhere" and that "on the face of it, it's
>> utterly absurd." According to McAdams, David Ferrie and Mary Sherman
>> have never been linked and Judyth's "exceedingly implausible" story
>> seems to be "inconsistent with a lot of things we know about Lee,"
>> including evidence that he was faithful to Marina..
>>
>> <quote off>
>>
>> I wonder if John now is prepared to go further and state that Judyth's
>> story is debunked completely.
>>
>> PF
>>
>>
>
>
--
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Well, we've cited plenty of examples in the past--attributing to Judyth:
>1) material written by her agent
>2) material written by Howard Platzman
>3) claimed statements that cite an e-mail from Louis Girdler, not Judyth.
>etc.
>
Not that I believe this lame attempt to blame anybody but Judyth, but
note that Team Judyth is now claiming that Judyth's *own cohorts,*
people she freely chose to help her develop and promote her story,
have put out a lot of misinformation.
Unfortunately, Judyth is a compulsive talker, e-mailer, web page
poster, and newsgroup poster.
So the bulk of the really absurd stuff comes directly from her.
But the claim seems to be "don't pay any attention to the fact that
the stuff we've put out is silly and wacky and untrue, we are
*eventually* going to get it right."
Translation: we are eventually going to sanitize it and take out the
stuff that's easily disproven. Forget that that stuff *was* in her
account before we knew it could be disproven.
--
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>People can read what your "reliable sources" CLAIM are her statements,
>John. You never seem to grasp that.
>
What I grasp is that the vast majority of the material on my page is
directly *from Judyth.*
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
pre-judgement. Thus, whatever bolstered it was "a reliable source," and
whatever contradicted it was "an unreliable source."
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
those "Judyth statements" turn out to be attributed to sources written
by other people, not by Judyth, ranging from e-mails to the outlines.
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>You pre-judged, and filtered all subsequent information though that
>pre-judgement. Thus, whatever bolstered it was "a reliable source," and
>whatever contradicted it was "an unreliable source."
>
Judyth's own statements condemn her. The vast majority of the
material that's the basis of my web page comes from Judyth.
Any lurkers who are still interested in this issue can easily see
this:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
Martin Shackelford
actually phrasing it that way.
1) Material written by her agent.
You say "So Judyth claims." No, Barb--I KNOW the material was written
by her agent. I was party to all of the e-mail exchanges relating to it.
I know that she was talking about Yucatan and Merida, and that he was
talking about Cancun, as a location more readers would recognized. I KNOW
that the "Cancun" nonsense originated with the agent--I watched it develop
over a period of time. It went from "an area near what is now Cancun" to
shorthand references to "Cancun." Judyth didn't bring up Cancun, HE DID. I
KNOW that. I'm not relying on some "claim" by Judyth. You are way out of
line with these irresponsible comments.
2) Material written by Howard Platzman.
Again, we see you saying "So y'all claim." What a folksy little smear
that is. It's very simple, Barb--Howard WROTE ALL OF THE OUTLINES. That's
just a fact. You can call it a claim all you want, but everyone involved
in the e-mail exchanges at the time KNOWS Howard wrote all of the
outlines. Judyth wrote NONE of them, only commented on their accuracy or
inaccuracy. The anonymous coward who fed copies of some of them (from a
larger group) to McAdams KNEW that, but failed (I assume) to mention that
to McAdams, offering them as "Judyth's own words." They weren't, Barb, and
that's just a fact. Her name is only on the outlines because Howard was
working from her e-mails and other materials she provided--sometimes he
made errors. They are not Judyth's errors, as he himself has noted.
EVERYONE involved with the outlines has confirmed this, and still you
dismiss the fact as a "claim." That's not my problem, Barb, that's yours.
3) claimed statements that cite an e-mail from Louis Girdler, not Judyth.
And what do you say to this one? You ask, in near-perfect misreading of
what I said, "Are you accusing Louis of having forged/misrepresented an
e-mail from Judyth?" Barb, there WAS NO E-MAIL "from Judyth." ONLY an
e-mail from Louis Girdler--which McAdams cited as though he was quoting
something JUDYTH wrote. He doesn't provide Girdler's e-mail, so we don't
even see exactly what Girdler CLAIMS Judyth said, only McAdams' summary
version. You say you haven't read McAdams' webpage--so apparently you
don't have a clue about what I'm talking about, and yet you go off
half-cocked with silliness about forged e-mails. Here is what McAdams says
in his "factual essay"--
"In another e-mail she claimed to have Lee’s “shower shoes.” But is an
e-mail from Judyth cited in the footnote? Let's look:
"E-mail to author from Louis Girdler, dated August 7, 2003." A secondary
source reference for material presented as being from a primary source. It
is interesting to note that another Girdler myth, that Anna Lewis was
offered money to influence her statement in January 2000, and that Howard
Platzman "admitted" this, has vanished from the current version of the
essay, along with this footnote:
"7. E-mail message from Louis Girdler dated July 24, 2003. The payment was
admitted to Girdler by Howard Platzman, perhaps the researcher closest to
Judyth, and coauthor with her of an outline (“Deadly Alliance”) of her
story." Of course, as noted, Howard was the author of the outlines, not
the "co-author."
Nor is this the only example. Here's another:
"For example, in one e-mail she asked rhetorically “I would like to see a
list of people involved in this case who died of lung cancer, especially
if they did not smoke, such as Jack Ruby. And how many heart attacks
(sodium morphate).”
Then there is a footnote. One would assume the footnote would be to an
e-mail from Judyth, as he seems to be quoting an e-mail from Judyth, but
that is, in fact, NOT what he is quoting. Let's look at his footnote 7:
" Post dated November 8, 2001 on newsgroup alt.conspiracy.jfk, by
“Ihateliars.”--not an e-mail from Judyth at all. In fact, quite a number
of "Judyth's own words" turn out to come from newsgroup posts by this same
poster, an anonymous Judyth basher who is simply assumed to be a reliable
source of accurate copies of Judyth e-mails.
When it comes to the claim that she included Ron Lewis in her account at
one point, we don't even get that much of a citation:
"E-mail, dated July 5, 2004, from informant who discussed this element of
the story with Judyth." No way to evaluate the reliability of this
anonymous informant, who makes a claim contrary to everything I've seen
from her--she has ALWAYS rejected Ron Lewis' claims. This same anonymous
"informant" is also the source of the claim that she included Roscoe White
in her account at one point--again, contrary to my experience. In fact,
she made a reference to a police officer, and OTHERS suggested the name
Roscoe White to her. The most she said was "maybe." Of course, THIS detail
is buried in a different footnote. McAdams' essay simply flatly asserts
that White was "a part of Judyth's account early on," which isn't true.
He also cites an anonymous source for the claim that Judyth was asking for
a million dollars for her book, when in fact it was her agent who kept
saying it was "a million dollar book," not a demand by Judyth for that
amount. McAdams goes so far as to attribute to this "demand" the lack of
interest by publishers.
That's in addition to things like citing Robert Baker as a source for
something that happened in New Orleans while he was on a boat in the Gulf
of Mexico.
So yes, there has been a variety of misrepresentation going on.
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Look, Barb, I'm getting very tired of you calling me a liar without
>actually phrasing it that way.
>
>1) Material written by her agent.
>
> You say "So Judyth claims." No, Barb--I KNOW the material was written
>by her agent. I was party to all of the e-mail exchanges relating to it.
>I know that she was talking about Yucatan and Merida, and that he was
>talking about Cancun, as a location more readers would recognized. I KNOW
>that the "Cancun" nonsense originated with the agent--I watched it develop
>over a period of time. It went from "an area near what is now Cancun" to
>shorthand references to "Cancun." Judyth didn't bring up Cancun, HE DID. I
>KNOW that. I'm not relying on some "claim" by Judyth. You are way out of
>line with these irresponsible comments.
Martin, Judyth told both Mary Ferrell and David Lifton "Cancun."
Neither can vouch for "fine hotel," but they make it clear that
"Cancun" is part of her story.
Then there is the following:
Talking on Black Op Radio, Judyth described her “first book.”
<Quote on>
I was terrified . . . I was scared . . . I wrote a bunch of nonsense
because I didn’t want to get sued. All I wanted to do was to get some
publishers interested in my story and then I would give them the other
book, which by the way a number of people saw my original book . . .
it’s not what was put out there to begin with, that was I guess you
would call it a “teaser” I put that out there to try to get interest.
. . .
<Quote off>
Nothing here about the agent making stuff up. Here Judyth said she
wrote "a bunch of nonsense."
Then there is the fact that you guys first blamed Howard Platzman for
Cancun -- and he "confessed" to it.
So you just can't get your story straight.
>
>2) Material written by Howard Platzman.
>
> Again, we see you saying "So y'all claim." What a folksy little smear
>that is. It's very simple, Barb--Howard WROTE ALL OF THE OUTLINES. That's
>just a fact. You can call it a claim all you want, but everyone involved
>in the e-mail exchanges at the time KNOWS Howard wrote all of the
>outlines. Judyth wrote NONE of them, only commented on their accuracy or
>inaccuracy. The anonymous coward who fed copies of some of them (from a
>larger group) to McAdams KNEW that, but failed (I assume) to mention that
>to McAdams, offering them as "Judyth's own words."
My source didn't characterize them in any way.
The just came with "Judyth Baker" listed beside Platzman as coauthor.
You problem, Martin, is that the stuff in the outlines is consistent
with all the early versions of Judyth's story, but only contradicts
(when it is convenient) later, altered to evade problems versions.
>They weren't, Barb, and
>that's just a fact. Her name is only on the outlines because Howard was
>working from her e-mails and other materials she provided--sometimes he
>made errors. They are not Judyth's errors, as he himself has noted.
>EVERYONE involved with the outlines has confirmed this, and still you
>dismiss the fact as a "claim." That's not my problem, Barb, that's yours.
>
Why don't you look at the outline, and tell us what was a "Platzman
error."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/alliance.pdf
>3) claimed statements that cite an e-mail from Louis Girdler, not Judyth.
>And what do you say to this one? You ask, in near-perfect misreading of
>what I said, "Are you accusing Louis of having forged/misrepresented an
>e-mail from Judyth?" Barb, there WAS NO E-MAIL "from Judyth." ONLY an
>e-mail from Louis Girdler--which McAdams cited as though he was quoting
>something JUDYTH wrote.
No, it's never presented as a "quote from Judyth."
It's simply a statement about her story, taken directly from an e-mail
I got from Girdler.
Either Girdler was lying or badly mistaken, or Judyth said that.
My call, as a scholar, is that Girdler is way more reliable than any
of the people who have denied that.
>He doesn't provide Girdler's e-mail, so we don't
>even see exactly what Girdler CLAIMS Judyth said, only McAdams' summary
>version. You say you haven't read McAdams' webpage--so apparently you
>don't have a clue about what I'm talking about, and yet you go off
>half-cocked with silliness about forged e-mails. Here is what McAdams says
>in his "factual essay"--
>
>"In another e-mail she claimed to have Lee’s “shower shoes.” But is an
>e-mail from Judyth cited in the footnote? Let's look:
>
>"E-mail to author from Louis Girdler, dated August 7, 2003." A secondary
>source reference for material presented as being from a primary source. It
>is interesting to note that another Girdler myth, that Anna Lewis was
>offered money to influence her statement in January 2000, and that Howard
>Platzman "admitted" this, has vanished from the current version of the
>essay, along with this footnote:
>
Girdler correctly remembered that money was discussed with Lewis, but
couldn't be sure that it was discussed *before* she gave her interview
about seeing Judyth with Lee.
So I decided that I didn't have solid evidence that she did it for
money.
>"7. E-mail message from Louis Girdler dated July 24, 2003. The payment was
>admitted to Girdler by Howard Platzman, perhaps the researcher closest to
>Judyth, and coauthor with her of an outline (“Deadly Alliance”) of her
>story." Of course, as noted, Howard was the author of the outlines, not
>the "co-author."
>
He was listed as the coauthor along with Judyth.
>Nor is this the only example. Here's another:
>
>"For example, in one e-mail she asked rhetorically “I would like to see a
>list of people involved in this case who died of lung cancer, especially
>if they did not smoke, such as Jack Ruby. And how many heart attacks
>(sodium morphate).”
>
>Then there is a footnote. One would assume the footnote would be to an
>e-mail from Judyth, as he seems to be quoting an e-mail from Judyth, but
>that is, in fact, NOT what he is quoting. Let's look at his footnote 7:
>
>" Post dated November 8, 2001 on newsgroup alt.conspiracy.jfk, by
>“Ihateliars.”--not an e-mail from Judyth at all. In fact, quite a number
>of "Judyth's own words" turn out to come from newsgroup posts by this same
>poster, an anonymous Judyth basher who is simply assumed to be a reliable
>source of accurate copies of Judyth e-mails.
>
We think we all know who this is.
Are you saying that he simply lied about what Judyth told him?
He actually quoted verbatim passages.
It's also the case that the "sodium morphate" business is attested to
by the draft chapter portion:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Nov15to17LASTfile.pdf
. . . and by our own Gary Buell:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/morphate.txt
So her mention of a silly Internet factoid is solidly established.
>When it comes to the claim that she included Ron Lewis in her account at
>one point, we don't even get that much of a citation:
>
>"E-mail, dated July 5, 2004, from informant who discussed this element of
>the story with Judyth." No way to evaluate the reliability of this
>anonymous informant, who makes a claim contrary to everything I've seen
>from her--she has ALWAYS rejected Ron Lewis' claims.
I have to judge the credibility of sources, and I judge this one to be
reliable.
>This same anonymous
>"informant" is also the source of the claim that she included Roscoe White
>in her account at one point--again, contrary to my experience. In fact,
>she made a reference to a police officer, and OTHERS suggested the name
>Roscoe White to her. The most she said was "maybe." Of course, THIS detail
>is buried in a different footnote. McAdams' essay simply flatly asserts
>that White was "a part of Judyth's account early on," which isn't true.
>
In the first place, I deem the source reliable.
In the second place, she is clearly backing off this in her
manuscript:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/endofline.pdf
>He also cites an anonymous source for the claim that Judyth was asking for
>a million dollars for her book, when in fact it was her agent who kept
>saying it was "a million dollar book," not a demand by Judyth for that
>amount. McAdams goes so far as to attribute to this "demand" the lack of
>interest by publishers.
>
Again, I have a good source on this, and don't trust Judyth's denials.
Judyth claimed, when posting on a blog, that the NATIONAL ENQUIRER
"offered me a lot of money."
http://www.chattablogs.com/brightbill/archives/008403.html
An e-mail from her, leaked to me, flatly claimed that the NATIONAL
ENQUIRER offered her $600,000 for her story.
In another e-mail, dated November 13, 2000, she claimed “YES, IT IS
TRUE I TURNED DOWN A LARGE SUM OF MONEY FORM [sic] NATIONAL ENQUIRER.
WHILE I AM BROKE, THE STORY IS NOT FOR SALE TO A SLEAZY TABLOID.”
[caps in original]
So there is plenty of evidence that she was hoping for the "big
score." She *says* she would not take money for it, but if that's
true, she and her agent would never have been shopping it around.
>That's in addition to things like citing Robert Baker as a source for
>something that happened in New Orleans while he was on a boat in the Gulf
>of Mexico.
>
And when do I do that?
>So yes, there has been a variety of misrepresentation going on.
>
Not only are you nitpicking, you are wrong on all your points.
.John
Martin Shackelford
Judyth" material is often footnoted to e-mails from Louis Girdler, e-mails
from anonymous informant, newsgroup postings by an anonymous poster using
the handle "ihateliars," work-in-progress outlines by Howard Platzman, and
other NOT Judyth sources.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
McAdams) wrote:
>On 23 Jan 2005 10:19:13 -0500, Martin Shackelford
><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>You pre-judged, and filtered all subsequent information though that
>>pre-judgement. Thus, whatever bolstered it was "a reliable source," and
>>whatever contradicted it was "an unreliable source."
>>
>
>Judyth's own statements condemn her.
Untrue and unhelpful .John.
> The vast majority of the
>material that's the basis of my web page comes from Judyth.
It came 'through' Judyth; pilfored and illegally posted.
>
>Any lurkers who are still interested in this issue can easily see
>this:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
The McAdams anti-J polemic. :-0
Pamela
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
John McAdams
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:41:13 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>McAdams) wrote:
>
>>On 23 Jan 2005 10:19:13 -0500, Martin Shackelford
>><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>>>You pre-judged, and filtered all subsequent information though that
>>>pre-judgement. Thus, whatever bolstered it was "a reliable source," and
>>>whatever contradicted it was "an unreliable source."
>>>
>>
>>Judyth's own statements condemn her.
>
>Untrue and unhelpful .John.
>
>> The vast majority of the
>>material that's the basis of my web page comes from Judyth.
>
>It came 'through' Judyth; pilfored and illegally posted.
>
You are admitting she wrote the stuff.
You just think it should have been concealed from people.
.John
Barb Junkkarinen
McAdams) wrote:
>On 23 Jan 2005 21:25:41 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
><pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:41:13 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>>McAdams) wrote:
>>
>>>On 23 Jan 2005 10:19:13 -0500, Martin Shackelford
>>><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You pre-judged, and filtered all subsequent information though that
>>>>pre-judgement. Thus, whatever bolstered it was "a reliable source," and
>>>>whatever contradicted it was "an unreliable source."
>>>>
>>>
>>>Judyth's own statements condemn her.
>>
>>Untrue and unhelpful .John.
>>
>>> The vast majority of the
>>>material that's the basis of my web page comes from Judyth.
>>
>>It came 'through' Judyth; pilfored and illegally posted.
>>
>
>You are admitting she wrote the stuff.
>
>You just think it should have been concealed from people.
Pamela seems to be the new loose cannon.<g>
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Look, Barb, I'm getting very tired of you calling me a liar without
>actually phrasing it that way.
I've never even implied you are a liar, Martin. I do not now, nor have
I ever, thought that of you. I think you've been snookered. I think
you can't see the forest for the trees where this is all concerned. I
understand and, yes, even *acknowledge*, what you've put out
repeatedly about the agent (whichever number he was), the friend, the
thieves, the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. What you
don't seem to get is that people find these excuses laughable and
uncredible....and unending ... at every turn there's another excuse or
explanation, but no evidence.
Barb :-)
Pamela McElwain-Brown
McAdams) wrote:
>On 23 Jan 2005 21:25:41 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
><pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:41:13 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>>McAdams) wrote:
>>
>>>On 23 Jan 2005 10:19:13 -0500, Martin Shackelford
>>><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You pre-judged, and filtered all subsequent information though that
>>>>pre-judgement. Thus, whatever bolstered it was "a reliable source," and
>>>>whatever contradicted it was "an unreliable source."
>>>>
>>>
>>>Judyth's own statements condemn her.
>>
>>Untrue and unhelpful .John.
>>
>>> The vast majority of the
>>>material that's the basis of my web page comes from Judyth.
>>
>>It came 'through' Judyth; pilfored and illegally posted.
>>
>
>You are admitting she wrote the stuff.
>
>You just think it should have been concealed from people.
>
>.John
I think what you have done on your trashy and erroneous page speaks
for itself.
Pamela
Martin Shackelford
only what will point them in that direction. It will not help them make
an objective evaluation of Judyth's credibility.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
I am and have been speaking for myself. Hard as it may be for you to
accept, that is just the way it is. I am keeping an open mind on
Judyth's statements.
Pamela
Peter Fokes
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:28:19 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>McAdams) wrote:
>
>>On 23 Jan 2005 21:25:41 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>><pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:41:13 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>>>McAdams) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 23 Jan 2005 10:19:13 -0500, Martin Shackelford
>>>><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You pre-judged, and filtered all subsequent information though that
>>>>>pre-judgement. Thus, whatever bolstered it was "a reliable source," and
>>>>>whatever contradicted it was "an unreliable source."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Judyth's own statements condemn her.
>>>
>>>Untrue and unhelpful .John.
>>>
>>>> The vast majority of the
>>>>material that's the basis of my web page comes from Judyth.
>>>
>>>It came 'through' Judyth; pilfored and illegally posted.
>>>
>>
>>You are admitting she wrote the stuff.
>>
>>You just think it should have been concealed from people.
>>
>>.John
>
>I think what you have done on your trashy and erroneous page speaks
>for itself.
>
>Pamela
Then Pamela...why don't you spend the same amount of time and effort,
that John has spent in creating his page, to create a page that
actually provides proof of Judyth's claims? Such a page could serve as
a touch point for those who believe Judyth's claims are true. They
could offer up your URL when disbelievers point out the contradictions
and variability in Judyth's stories.
If you want to be her defender THEN OFFER UP YOUR OWN
PROOF....hopefully something more substantial than SHADOWS.
Moaning and groaning and insulting John and others is no way to get at
the TRUTH, is it?
PF
Martin Shackelford
in your own mind. For you to believe some of the nonsense you have been
spouting, you would HAVE to believe that I was lying about some things.
The idea that I believe it all but have been "snookered" by a devious
and clever woman just won't wash.
I've examined the evidence--but you don't accept that it proves anything.
I've talked with witnesses--but you don't believe they are reliable, or
relevant--not always sure what it is you are saying on that.
I've based many of my comments on my own experiences, and on the e-mail
exchanges that I've followed--including those with the agent and
others--but you don't want to believe that what I have to say about
those exchanges is reliable.
Either I'm a liar, or you've been sold a bill of goods by the bashers, Barb.
Martin Shackelford
shorthand for the general area, so it isn't surprising that Judyth said
Cancun a time or two--but Lifton has repeatedly misrepresented their
conversation, so I have no reason to trust anything he says about it. He
has misrepresented other things as well, so as far as I'm concerned, he
has no credibility.
You've created your little "case on Cancun" from distorted fragments, and
keep repeating it, so I don't expect that to change. As for the outlines,
you say they WEREN'T provided to you as "Judyth's own words"? You just
ASSUMED they were? You were wrong then.
"It's never presented as a quote from Judyth"? Then how come there are
quotation marks around the statement, and it's presented in such a way as
to suggest to the reader that you are quoting her?
You keep insisting that Girdler is "reliable," and yet he has made a
series of misstatements and misrepresenations, claimed that Howard
Platzman "admitted" offering money to Anna Lewis--when I was there and
know that no such thing occurred. You are wrong about Girdler. Your "call,
as a scholar"--how droll--is way off base.
"Girdler correctly remembered that money was discussed with Lewis"? No,
John, he didn't "correctly remember." Money was NOT discussed "with
Lewis." AFTER the interview had been completed, Howard and Judyth talked
about the future POSSIBILITY of giving Anna some financial help IF the
book did well. There was NO MENTION of this to Anna, so the idea that
Girdler "correctly remembered" such a thing is specious nonsense. You keep
repeating that Judyth was listed as "co-author" of the outlines, but you
consistently ignore WHY that was--Howard wrote them BASED ON E-MAILS and
other materials provided by Judyth--he didn't always get things right, and
the outlines were constantly going back and forth for comment and
correction, a process that you ALWAYS conveniently ignore. The outline
wasn't completed until it ran many pages longer than anything you've seen.
What you have are DRAFTS, not the "polished" final versions you claim to
possess.
You say of "ihateliars" that "we all know who this is"--in that case, feel
free to identify the person, so that we may judge their credibility. "He
actually quoted verbatim passages." Wow--how impressive. Those "passages"
couldn't have been taken out of context, could they--after all, they were
"verbatim." What rot.
You "judge" your anonymous informant to be "reliable" only because they
told you what you wanted to hear, John. They told you that her account
included Ron Lewis and Roscoe White--and I know that it never did. So you
can take your "judgement" and put it where it belongs. Your "scholarly
judgement" is proving to be a thin reed upon which to rely for valid
information. "I deem the source reliable." Pardon me if I don't find that
very impressive, John, especially when the "reliable source" is stating
things that I know to be false.
When do you cite Robert Baker on something that happened in New Orleans
while he was on a boat in the Gulf of Mexico? When you cite him on the
reason she got the job at Reily--he had NO WAY of knowing that of his own
knowledge, yet you find him "reliable" on it, in accordance with your
usual "scholarly" standard. It's not looking good for your scholarly
standard, John.
You pompously claim that I am "wrong on all your points," but that, as
usual, ASSUMES that your sources are as reliable as you "deem" them--a
very big assumption--and, as it turns out, a mistaken one.
Martin
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>You are either being disingenuous, Barb, or you are compartmentalizing
>in your own mind. For you to believe some of the nonsense you have been
>spouting, you would HAVE to believe that I was lying about some things.
>The idea that I believe it all but have been "snookered" by a devious
>and clever woman just won't wash.
>I've examined the evidence--but you don't accept that it proves anything.
>I've talked with witnesses--but you don't believe they are reliable, or
>relevant--not always sure what it is you are saying on that.
>I've based many of my comments on my own experiences, and on the e-mail
>exchanges that I've followed--including those with the agent and
>others--but you don't want to believe that what I have to say about
>those exchanges is reliable.
>Either I'm a liar, or you've been sold a bill of goods by the bashers, Barb.
>
Or you've been sold a bill of goods by Judyth.
John McAdams
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:28:19 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>McAdams) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> The vast majority of the
>>>>material that's the basis of my web page comes from Judyth.
>>>
>>>It came 'through' Judyth; pilfored and illegally posted.
>>>
>>
>>You are admitting she wrote the stuff.
>>
>>You just think it should have been concealed from people.
>>
>>.John
>
>I think what you have done on your trashy and erroneous page speaks
>for itself.
>
Sashay(tm)!!
Judyth's statements are *so* embarrassing, aren't they. :-)
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>After the agent began to make repeated references to Cancun, it became a
>shorthand for the general area, so it isn't surprising that Judyth said
>Cancun a time or two
OIC. You are admitting it now.
>--but Lifton has repeatedly misrepresented their
>conversation, so I have no reason to trust anything he says about it. He
>has misrepresented other things as well, so as far as I'm concerned, he
>has no credibility.
>
Want to bash Mary Ferrell, who also was told "Cancun" by Judyth?
>You've created your little "case on Cancun" from distorted fragments, and
>keep repeating it, so I don't expect that to change. As for the outlines,
>you say they WEREN'T provided to you as "Judyth's own words"? You just
>ASSUMED they were? You were wrong then.
>
The outline says:
<Quote on>
Deadly Alliance
By Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D.
<Quote off>
So yes, I treat it was Judyth's own words.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/alliance.pdf
>"It's never presented as a quote from Judyth"? Then how come there are
>quotation marks around the statement, and it's presented in such a way as
>to suggest to the reader that you are quoting her?
>
You've taken this out of context, Martin.
I never presented the story about the *shower shoes* as a direct quote
from Judyth.
"Deadly Alliance" is presented as "Judyth's story" and most certainly
put in quotes when I quote it.
>You keep insisting that Girdler is "reliable," and yet he has made a
>series of misstatements and misrepresenations, claimed that Howard
>Platzman "admitted" offering money to Anna Lewis--when I was there and
>know that no such thing occurred. You are wrong about Girdler. Your "call,
>as a scholar"--how droll--is way off base.
>
>"Girdler correctly remembered that money was discussed with Lewis"? No,
>John, he didn't "correctly remember."
Below you *admit* that money *was* discussed.
>Money was NOT discussed "with
>Lewis." AFTER the interview had been completed, Howard and Judyth talked
>about the future POSSIBILITY of giving Anna some financial help IF the
>book did well.
Translation: money was discussed.
>There was NO MENTION of this to Anna, so the idea that
No? You guys have changed your story on this.
>Girdler "correctly remembered" such a thing is specious nonsense. You keep
>repeating that Judyth was listed as "co-author" of the outlines, but you
>consistently ignore WHY that was--Howard wrote them BASED ON E-MAILS and
>other materials provided by Judyth--he didn't always get things right, and
>the outlines were constantly going back and forth for comment and
>correction, a process that you ALWAYS conveniently ignore.
No, that process *should* have resulted in the outline being the
"authentic Judyth story" before you guys sent it all over the place.
In fact, I think it *did,* but now that it's been noticed that the
outline includes a lot of silly statements, it somehow isn't Judyth's.
>The outline
>wasn't completed until it ran many pages longer than anything you've seen.
>What you have are DRAFTS, not the "polished" final versions you claim to
>possess.
>
And you, quite conveniently, aren't going to release the "final
version."
Anybody can see that the version I have posted is polished and the
result of considerable work.
And everybody knows it was sent out to a lot of people -- else I
wouldn't have gotten a copy.
Why did you send out something that was, according to you, unfinished
and highly inaccurate.
>You say of "ihateliars" that "we all know who this is"--in that case, feel
>free to identify the person,
It looks to me like it has to be Matt Allison.
>so that we may judge their credibility. "He
>actually quoted verbatim passages." Wow--how impressive. Those "passages"
>couldn't have been taken out of context, could they--after all, they were
>"verbatim." What rot.
>
I quote "ihateliars" as the source of the following from Judyth:
“I would like to see a list of people involved in this case who died
of lung cancer, especially if they did not smoke, such as Jack Ruby.
And how many heart attacks (sodium morphate).”
How could that be put "in context" and interpreted as anything other
than her buying a silly Internet factoid?
Further, she wrote Gary Buell the following:
"Gary, David Ferrie told me about it. I actually believed at that time
that there was nothing Dave did not know. In medical matters like this
he described this as a method he could use to commit suicide and
people would think it was a heart attack. There would be no way to
discern it wasn’t a natural death." (Post dated December 18, 2003 on
newsgroup alt.assassination.jfk by Gary Buell.)
And finally there is this in her draft chapter:
<Quote on>
And when you look at all the people who died connected with the
Kennedy assassination, don’t bother with how they died— deaths can
seem like heart attacks with sodium morphate, and a man can be
injected with ether through the roof of his mouth and seem to die of
natural causes.
<Quote off>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Nov15to17LASTfile.pdf
So "ihateliars" is a liar, and Buell is a liar, and the draft chapter
was, I suppose written by her agent, right?
But they all independently knew what lie to tell about Judyth to
associate her with a silly 'net factoid, right?
>You "judge" your anonymous informant to be "reliable" only because they
>told you what you wanted to hear, John. They told you that her account
>included Ron Lewis and Roscoe White--and I know that it never did.
You have no way of knowing that. You can only know what Judyth told
*you.* You can't know what she told other people.
And you accept her denials.
>So you
>can take your "judgement" and put it where it belongs. Your "scholarly
>judgement" is proving to be a thin reed upon which to rely for valid
>information. "I deem the source reliable." Pardon me if I don't find that
>very impressive, John, especially when the "reliable source" is stating
>things that I know to be false.
>
Martin, you lack credibility when you claim things like this.
>When do you cite Robert Baker on something that happened in New Orleans
>while he was on a boat in the Gulf of Mexico? When you cite him on the
>reason she got the job at Reily--he had NO WAY of knowing that of his own
>knowledge, yet you find him "reliable" on it, in accordance with your
>usual "scholarly" standard. It's not looking good for your scholarly
>standard, John.
>
Oh, *that.*
You have no evidence at all, except Judyth's claims, about the spooks
setting her up at Reily.
Robert Baker doubtless talked to her -- maybe in the summer, or maybe
after they were together again in the fall. What he remembers is her
*first* story. A lot different from the current one.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
I doubt that I could sink to that level no matter now much time I
took. :-0
> Such a page could serve as
>a touch point for those who believe Judyth's claims are true. They
>could offer up your URL when disbelievers point out the contradictions
>and variability in Judyth's stories.
You say that so blithely, Peter. It would be wonderful if Judyth had her
own page and site, but that is still a ways off. It is my intent to begin
to debate the issues here and elsewhere. I was going to start with the
"mice wars" until I saw McAdams had no cites for me to reference.
>
>If you want to be her defender THEN OFFER UP YOUR OWN
>PROOF....hopefully something more substantial than SHADOWS.
<Sigh>, Yes, I have become distracted from my pigtorial.
>
>Moaning and groaning and insulting John and others is no way to get at
>the TRUTH, is it?
>
>PF
>
McAdams page is just that bad Peter. It is hopeless. I had not visited
it in a while so had forgotten how truly sleazy it really is. It is an
embarrassment to the 'research community'.
Pamela
Pamela McElwain-Brown
McAdams) wrote:
>On 24 Jan 2005 09:06:44 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
><pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:28:19 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>>McAdams) wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> The vast majority of the
>>>>>material that's the basis of my web page comes from Judyth.
>>>>
>>>>It came 'through' Judyth; pilfored and illegally posted.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are admitting she wrote the stuff.
>>>
>>>You just think it should have been concealed from people.
>>>
>>>.John
>>
>>I think what you have done on your trashy and erroneous page speaks
>>for itself.
>>
>
>Sashay(tm)!!
>
>Judyth's statements are *so* embarrassing, aren't they. :-)
No, nothing about Judyth's statements is embarrassing to me. Seeing the
purloined and pilfored pass-through documents illegally posted there is
another matter however.
Your crude misrepresentations of Judyth's statements with your arrogant
and baseless false assertions is more than an embarrassment, .John; it is
a total shame to the 'research community'.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
community." They aren't researchers. They are defenders of the Warren
Commission--that's PR, not research.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
You're setting yourself up for a big fall.
Martin
Pamela McElwain-Brown
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Let's not mistake McAdams and his allies for part of the "research
>community." They aren't researchers. They are defenders of the Warren
>Commission--that's PR, not research.
>
>Martin
Exactly Martin. They are pretending to be part of the 'research
community'. Hence (and for other reasons as well) the quotes.
Pamela
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>More evidence that you aren't grasping reality, John. Your "directly from
>Judyth" material is often footnoted to e-mails from Louis Girdler, e-mails
>from anonymous informant, newsgroup postings by an anonymous poster using
>the handle "ihateliars," work-in-progress outlines by Howard Platzman, and
>other NOT Judyth sources.
>
People can easily see that vast amount of material I quote directly
from Judyth.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
And as for the outline: you really are painting Platzman as being a
complete idiot.
Supposedly he completely mangled the account that Judyth gave him.
I simply don't believe that, Martin.
.John
John McAdams
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:04:12 -0500, Peter Fokes
><justplai...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Such a page could serve as
>>a touch point for those who believe Judyth's claims are true. They
>>could offer up your URL when disbelievers point out the contradictions
>>and variability in Judyth's stories.
>
>You say that so blithely, Peter. It would be wonderful if Judyth had her
>own page and site, but that is still a ways off.
Nonsense. Judyth has had several web pages:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sanitize.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sboard.htm
http://judyth.freehomepage.com/
http://www.chattablogs.com/brightbill/archives/008403.html
The problem is that the more she writes, the most she entangles
herself.
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Pamela knows a lot more about Judyth and her evidence than you do, Barb.
>You're setting yourself up for a big fall.
Martin, I would be happy to learn Judyth's story is true ... makes no
diff to me one way or the other really. I just have this thing about
history being accurate. As I have said many times, until her book is
out, it's really all silly because there is no way to verify her
claims, including the claims made by you and others, that her claims
are documented. One cannot verify what one cannot see. One cannot
trust what is at odds with other facts, even at odds with itself from
one telling source to the next .... and all the explanations and
dismissals and excuses in the world won't change that. You should be
able to understand that, Martin. It's pretty simple. And as you note
to others ... why would anyone think their word is enough to establish
historical fact. It's not, there's too many probs and changes. So I
wait, like everyone else. But when claims are made and there's no
documentation to back them up, or I note there are differences with
previous statements or conflicts with known facts .... I will comment
upon them if I choose to do so. "Mum" would seem to be the best credo
for team Judyth until this book comes out ... if it ever does.... and
fewer and fewer are believing it's ever going to happen. Personally, I
hope it does come out ... and soon ... the sooner this is over the
better, imo.
Barb :-)
Pamela McElwain-Brown
McAdams) wrote:
>On 24 Jan 2005 21:55:52 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
><pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:04:12 -0500, Peter Fokes
>><justplai...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Such a page could serve as
>>>a touch point for those who believe Judyth's claims are true. They
>>>could offer up your URL when disbelievers point out the contradictions
>>>and variability in Judyth's stories.
>>
>>You say that so blithely, Peter. It would be wonderful if Judyth had her
>>own page and site, but that is still a ways off.
>
>Nonsense. Judyth has had several web pages:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sanitize.htm
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sboard.htm
Your pages are &*^%%$ John. We've already discussed that.
>
>http://judyth.freehomepage.com/
This is a general page, out of date because TMWKK is no longer
available.b
>
>http://www.chattablogs.com/brightbill/archives/008403.html
This is a blog not done by Judyth.
>
>The problem is that the more she writes, the most she entangles
>herself.
>
Untrue. That's the kind of nonsense you would have newbies believe.
Statements about her experiences are remarkably consistent. When she
tries to connect the dots about what she has seen and heard she
sometimes explains her thought process and that can get confusing.
James K. Olmstead
"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3taev05tg0q7t42ee...@4ax.com...
Perhaps it's because the actual story is about another and not her?
jko
Martin Shackelford
imagine "gotchas" where there are none. Bad habit.
Why would I bash Mary Ferrell, John? You posted an e-mail from Judyth to
Mary, then proceeded to read things into it which weren't there, and
substituted the product of your fevered imagination for the actual
content of the e-mail. Mary didn't misrepresent it--YOU did.
As I've noted before, Judyth didn't write the outlines. Your continual
insistence on ignoring that fact doesn't make your fantasy into reality.
Your distortion on the money issue is typical. The CLAIM was that money
was discussed with Anna Lewis. It wasn't. That was a lie. No one has
"changed the story" on that--where are you getting that nonsense? We
have ALWAYS said no money was discussed with Anna.
The idea that the outline was sent "all over the place" is another
typical distortion. It was sent to a limited e-mail list for comment,
not "all over the place." YOU were the one who circulated it "all over
the place," John. It wasn't sent to "a lot of people"--but to a limited
group, one of which apparently was passing things on to you. It was sent
out for comment--I've noted this before, and yet you continually repeat
the question of why it was circulated. That's why, John--try to remember
that for a change.
It didn't suddenly become "not Judyth's." The outlines were always the
product of Howard, not Judyth. You keep wanting to believe otherwise,
but that has nothing to do with reality.
"Release the final version"? To you? Why would anyone in their right
mind give YOU anything, John?
You keep using the phrase "anyone can see," but all they have to go on
is WHAT YOU PRESENT TO THEM--of course they will be inclined to come to
your conclusion--they've only seen your slanted version of things. There
were a whole series of draft outlines--the fact that someone leaked one
from the middle of the process to you, and you "deemed" it a polished
final version is irrelevant. You "deemed" wrong, once again. Your
uninformed opinions still don't qualify as facts, John.
If "ihateliars" was Matt Allison, then the source was a pretend
friend who turned against Judyth when she declined his bad advice, posted
a thoroughly inaccurate summary of Judyth's account, and then declared
himself a Lone Nutter. I wouldn't trust anything from him.
The "sodium morphate" references were a confusion of names--there was a
different drug. This was explained long ago, but you only listen to your
basher sources.
"You can't know that"? YOU can't know THAT, John. In fact, I have been
copied on ALL of her e-mails since 1999, so I DO know what she was
saying about Roscoe White and Ron Lewis--and neither was part of her
account at ANY point. Anyone who tells you otherwise is feeding you
false information. It has nothing to do with "accepting her denials"--I
was reading the correspondence. I KNOW what she was saying on the subject.
On the matter that Robert Baker claimed knowledge when he wasn't around
at the time, you say that he "doubtless talked to her." No evidence of
how he came by his story, so you just make the assumption. He has
consistently proved an unreliable source, and has admitted that he knows
NOTHING that would contradict what she is saying--and yet you keep
citing him on matters about which he knows nothing. For all you know, he
might be reporting his ASSUMPTION about what happened, as you do.
Martin
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>I'm not "admitting" anything I haven't stated before, John. You tend to
>imagine "gotchas" where there are none. Bad habit.
Let the record show that Martin admits that Judyth said "Cancun."
This instead of "the area of Cancun" or "Merida" or the other claims
about this.
>Why would I bash Mary Ferrell, John? You posted an e-mail from Judyth to
>Mary, then proceeded to read things into it which weren't there, and
>substituted the product of your fevered imagination for the actual
>content of the e-mail. Mary didn't misrepresent it--YOU did.
Mary said that Judyth said "Cancun."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ferrell.pdf
But, to review the issue for the benefit of lurkers, there was no
"Cancun" that anybody would want to go to in 1963.
>As I've noted before, Judyth didn't write the outlines. Your continual
>insistence on ignoring that fact doesn't make your fantasy into reality.
Why did you send them out with her listed as the primary author if she
didn't write them?
And if Platzman wrote them on the basis of e-mails from Judyth, was he
a complete idiot who didn't know what she was saying in the e-mails?
>Your distortion on the money issue is typical. The CLAIM was that money
>was discussed with Anna Lewis. It wasn't. That was a lie. No one has
>"changed the story" on that--where are you getting that nonsense? We
>have ALWAYS said no money was discussed with Anna.
I'll go back and look at out posts on this issue, Martin.
But you'll note that I don't use it in the essay.
>The idea that the outline was sent "all over the place" is another
>typical distortion. It was sent to a limited e-mail list for comment,
>not "all over the place." YOU were the one who circulated it "all over
>the place," John. It wasn't sent to "a lot of people"--but to a limited
>group, one of which apparently was passing things on to you. It was sent
>out for comment--I've noted this before, and yet you continually repeat
>the question of why it was circulated. That's why, John--try to remember
>that for a change.
Why did you send something out "for comment" when it was so sloppy and
so full of misinformation -- supposedly?
And why did you send it out under Judyth's name as author without her
even reading it and making "corrections?"
Martin, your claims just radically lack credibility on this issue.
>It didn't suddenly become "not Judyth's." The outlines were always the
>product of Howard, not Judyth. You keep wanting to believe otherwise,
>but that has nothing to do with reality.
See above.
Your argument simply isn't credible.
The outline was carefully formatted and polished, but you are telling
us is was sloppy and full of misinformation and Judyth didn't even
read it to make corrections.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/alliance.pdf
>"Release the final version"? To you? Why would anyone in their right
>mind give YOU anything, John?
How convenient.
You claim I have an early and inaccurate version, but you won't
release any more recent and (supposedly) accurate version.
Martin, the outline is the Judyth story, exactly as it was before you
guys determined that a lot of the statements didn't make any sense and
that it needed to become "early and inaccurate."
>You keep using the phrase "anyone can see," but all they have to go on
>is WHAT YOU PRESENT TO THEM--of course they will be inclined to come to
>your conclusion--they've only seen your slanted version of things.
They see what Team Judyth -- and Judyth herself -- was putting out AT
ONE POINT IN TIME.
I'm sure you would like to have that concealed.
>There
>were a whole series of draft outlines--the fact that someone leaked one
>from the middle of the process to you, and you "deemed" it a polished
>final version is irrelevant. You "deemed" wrong, once again. Your
>uninformed opinions still don't qualify as facts, John.
People can read it and see for themselves.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/alliance.pdf
People can decide whether Platzman was such an idiot that he entirely
mangled what Judyth said, apparently making up wacky things that
Judyth never said.
>If "ihateliars" was Matt Allison, then the source was a pretend
>friend who turned against Judyth when she declined his bad advice, posted
>a thoroughly inaccurate summary of Judyth's account, and then declared
>himself a Lone Nutter. I wouldn't trust anything from him.
His "inaccurate summary" was the same outline I posted.
And he posted a lot of text from e-mails -- which just happens to be
consistent with *other* e-mails from Judyth to various people.
Two words: Sodium Morphate.
>The "sodium morphate" references were a confusion of names--there was a
>different drug. This was explained long ago, but you only listen to your
>basher sources.
She used the term *in the context* of a sinister drug that could be
used to kill people and make it look like a heart attack.
She recited the exact things asserted on the Internet about the
"drug," and called it "sodium morphate."
She was taking factoids from the Internet and weaving them into her
story.
>"You can't know that"? YOU can't know THAT, John. In fact, I have been
>copied on ALL of her e-mails since 1999,
How do you know that.
>so I DO know what she was
>saying about Roscoe White and Ron Lewis--and neither was part of her
>account at ANY point. Anyone who tells you otherwise is feeding you
>false information. It has nothing to do with "accepting her denials"--I
>was reading the correspondence. I KNOW what she was saying on the subject.
>On the matter that Robert Baker claimed knowledge when he wasn't around
>at the time, you say that he "doubtless talked to her." No evidence of
>how he came by his story, so you just make the assumption.
Make the assumption that a husband talked to a wife?
You find this implausible?
>He has
>consistently proved an unreliable source, and has admitted that he knows
>NOTHING that would contradict what she is saying--and yet you keep
>citing him on matters about which he knows nothing.
He wasn't in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, but that doesn't keep
him from knowing what Judyth told him, and what she told him about
Reily contradicts her current story.
As for his being an "unreliable source:" the most outrageously
unreliable source is Judyth.
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>You keep talking about "Judyth's own statements," but a great many of
>those "Judyth statements" turn out to be attributed to sources written
>by other people, not by Judyth, ranging from e-mails to the outlines.
>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
Deb Bert
On 1/27/05 9:46 PM, in article 41f9af3a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu, "John
McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 27 Jan 2005 21:07:44 -0500, Martin Shackelford
> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not "admitting" anything I haven't stated before, John. You tend to
>> imagine "gotchas" where there are none. Bad habit.
>
> Let the record show that Martin admits that Judyth said "Cancun."
>
> This instead of "the area of Cancun" or "Merida" or the other claims
> about this.
>
>
>> Why would I bash Mary Ferrell, John? You posted an e-mail from Judyth to
>> Mary, then proceeded to read things into it which weren't there, and
>> substituted the product of your fevered imagination for the actual
>> content of the e-mail. Mary didn't misrepresent it--YOU did.
>
> Mary said that Judyth said "Cancun."
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ferrell.pdf
>
> But, to review the issue for the benefit of lurkers, there was no
> "Cancun" that anybody would want to go to in 1963.
Repeat posting:
http://homepage.mac.com/debbert/PhotoAlbum21.html
There was a Cancun and has been since at least 1787. I, personally, don't
know of anyone would have wanted to go there in 1963 (except for myself,
of course...but then I would have headed straight for Chichen Itza since
I'm not that much into fishing). But we do know that the CIA sure found
the Yucatan peninsula entertaining and compelling during that time
period...as well as in 50's...and earlier...and later... It was such a
cool launching ground for coups, assassination attempts, dropping leaflets
sprayed with propaganda, bombing raids. Fun, fun, fun. Of course, maybe
the big early draw to that area for the CIA was fruit. Must've needed it
to prevent scurvy.
--Deb
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Thanks Deb. Plus, this is a non-issue, as actually neither Judyth nor
Lee knew exactly where they were going to go and of course, it didn't
even happen. In addition, when Lee spoke of a 'fine hotel', (which I
believe he did) he was being sarcastic/ironic, as he was when he
called his arraignment 'that short and sweet hearing'.
Let's move on to something that did happen, ok?
Martin Shackelford
misrepresent your sources?
Martin
Martin Shackelford
"Cancun" appeared in the e-mail to Mary Ferrell--just a discussion of
how you grossly misinterpreted that fact.
Nor has anyone ever said there was a Cancun TOURIST SITE in 1963. The
references to Cancun were simply a geographical shorthand--something you
keep failing to acknowledge.
What "you" are you talking about, John? Make sense. HOWARD wrote the
outlines, and he sent them out for comment. At least make some effort at
accuracy on this. I'm not making an "argument"--I'm telling you what
happened. Your repeated false claim that the uncorrected nonsense you
have is "the Judyth account" is simply your unfounded assumption.
One circulates something for comment if one isn't sure whether it is
correct--that's not a tough one, John. As for the "carefully formatted
and polished," one can establish a format before going very far with the
content, John--that's just a misrepresentation on your part.
I do note that you don't use the phony claim of money and Anna Lewis in
your essay--any more. I also note that you rushed to include it when you
first got the nonsense from Girdler, until the story broke down and
became too ridiculous to sustain--with NO ONE PRESENT supporting it.
It is particularly laughable that you continue to rely on peripheral
recollections from Robert Baker as reliable information, when his memory
has repeatedly been shown to be incredibly bad, and when he himself has
admitted that he knows NOTHING that contradicts Judyth's account. You
seem to be relying on the "Robert Baker" messages that Rose later
admitted having written, and she had NO personal knowledge of any of
this, just her versions of his poor memory and her own assumptions.
Martin
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Another phony attempt to claim a "gotcha"--there was never a denial that
>"Cancun" appeared in the e-mail to Mary Ferrell--just a discussion of
>how you grossly misinterpreted that fact.
>Nor has anyone ever said there was a Cancun TOURIST SITE in 1963. The
>references to Cancun were simply a geographical shorthand--something you
>keep failing to acknowledge.
What you seem to fail to remember is that Cancun only became a
geographical shorthand AFTER Deb Bert posted the info on Cancun ...
before that, we heard than Judyth hadn't said Cancun ... then it was
shown that she had said Cancun, then it was that they weren't really
going TO Cancun but to the ruins, then .... well ... it went on and
on. I, at least, don't recall this geographicalkshorthand pap until
after Deb posted the info on Cancun adn the hotel at the ruins. You
grasped it and have used it ever since.
>What "you" are you talking about, John? Make sense. HOWARD wrote the
>outlines, and he sent them out for comment. At least make some effort at
>accuracy on this. I'm not making an "argument"--I'm telling you what
>happened. Your repeated false claim that the uncorrected nonsense you
>have is "the Judyth account" is simply your unfounded assumption.
Well, there is the e Judyth sent out with the latest version noting
that she didn't have an ending to the phone conversation right yet
because she just couldn't face going there. In the text, that's part
of the same conversation about Cancun .... like the next sentence or
so, she didn't say the Cancun thing and hotel wasn't accurate and
needed to be fixed, and she didn't say she hadn't written that part
... and she was sending to others what she had thus far ... just
couldn't do that ending of the conversation because it was too painful
to go there.
>One circulates something for comment if one isn't sure whether it is
>correct--that's not a tough one, John.
Judyth circulated that .... she should have known if it was accurate
or not.
You seem to forget that while some people were born at night, none of
us were born last night.
Barb :-)
Peter Fokes
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>You seem to forget that while some people were born at night, none of
>us were born last night.
>
>Barb :-)
Ah, what a wonderful thought...
I'd visit Dallas on the 100th anniversary :-)
PF
Barb Junkkarinen
Let's do lunch ... then we can boogie over to DP and see how many
shadows are falling south onto the cars on Elm ..... okay, so we may
be boogieing reallllly slow by then.<g>
Barb :-)
>
>
>PF
John McAdams
The problem is that there were no "fine hotels" in Cancun.
Indeed, I don't think anybody can show any CIA presence in *Cancun.*
Maybe elsewhere in Yucatan.
.John
--
John McAdams
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 28 Jan 2005 00:07:53 -0500, Deb Bert <deb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Mary said that Judyth said "Cancun."
>>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ferrell.pdf
>>>
>>> But, to review the issue for the benefit of lurkers, there was no
>>> "Cancun" that anybody would want to go to in 1963.
>>
>>
>>Repeat posting:
>>http://homepage.mac.com/debbert/PhotoAlbum21.html
>>
>>There was a Cancun and has been since at least 1787. I, personally, don't
>>know of anyone would have wanted to go there in 1963 (except for myself,
>>of course...but then I would have headed straight for Chichen Itza since
>>I'm not that much into fishing). But we do know that the CIA sure found
>>the Yucatan peninsula entertaining and compelling during that time
>>period...as well as in 50's...and earlier...and later... It was such a
>>cool launching ground for coups, assassination attempts, dropping leaflets
>>sprayed with propaganda, bombing raids. Fun, fun, fun. Of course, maybe
>>the big early draw to that area for the CIA was fruit. Must've needed it
>>to prevent scurvy.
>>
>
>Thanks Deb. Plus, this is a non-issue, as actually neither Judyth nor
>Lee knew exactly where they were going to go and of course, it didn't
>even happen. In addition, when Lee spoke of a 'fine hotel', (which I
>believe he did) he was being sarcastic/ironic, as he was when he
>called his arraignment 'that short and sweet hearing'.
>
You are contradicting the Team Judyth account, which is that Judyth
didn't write "fine hotel."
But of course, you are quoting *another* Team Judyth account, which is
that Judyth did write that since Lee said it, but he was being
sarcastic.
When you guys can't get your story straight, don't you see how it
hurts your credibility?
.John
--
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>You respond by referring readers to the VERY SAME ESSAY where you
>misrepresent your sources?
>
That's because if they read it, they can see I *don't* misrepresent
the sources.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
Tell us about the American Cream Dog, Martin!
Tell us about Judyth's knowledge of Ancient Egyptian!
>Martin
>
>John McAdams wrote:
>
>> On 23 Jan 2005 10:19:22 -0500, Martin Shackelford
>> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You keep talking about "Judyth's own statements," but a great many of
>>>those "Judyth statements" turn out to be attributed to sources written
>>>by other people, not by Judyth, ranging from e-mails to the outlines.
>>>
>>
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>>
>> .John
>>
>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
--
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
You are misunderstanding me. I am acting independently. It makes sense
to me that Lee would reference a 'fine hotel' ironically.
>
>But of course, you are quoting *another* Team Judyth account, which is
>that Judyth did write that since Lee said it, but he was being
>sarcastic.
>
>When you guys can't get your story straight, don't you see how it
>hurts your credibility?
>
>.John
Why don't you just acknowledge my independence John? It would be so much
simpler. :-)
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>On 28 Jan 2005 00:07:53 -0500, Deb Bert <deb...@cox.net> wrote:
Doesn't matter. That whole thing is a strawman. "Fine hotel" is irony.
They didn't go there, they were discussing the future. Let it go.
>
>Indeed, I don't think anybody can show any CIA presence in *Cancun.*
>Maybe elsewhere in Yucatan.
>
>.John
Doesn't matter. It didn't happen.
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
That it irony, as has been pointed out countless times to you, is:
A: Your assumption, and
B: Not in keeping with the romance novel tone of the rest of the
conversation both before and after the fine hotel comment.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
What credibility would that be, John?<g> The story becomes less and
less believeable with every telling ... er...retelling, etc.
Barb :-)
>
>.John
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
It makes sense in the middle of that romance novel conversation???
Hardly.
>
>>
>>But of course, you are quoting *another* Team Judyth account, which is
>>that Judyth did write that since Lee said it, but he was being
>>sarcastic.
>>
>>When you guys can't get your story straight, don't you see how it
>>hurts your credibility?
>>
>>.John
>
>Why don't you just acknowledge my independence John? It would be so much
>simpler. :-)
Pamela has suddenly declared her independence in the last 36 hours,
John. Keep up, man!
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
It is NOT true that Cancun "only became a geographical shorthand" after
Deb Bert's posts. Whether or not you "recall" it, the archive will show
references to it in quite a few posts before Deb posted her information.
As for saying of the outlines that "Judyth circulated that," apparently
you haven't been paying attention, Barb. HOWARD wrote them, and HOWARD
circulated them to a small e-mail group for comment.
I don't think you were born yesterday, Barb--but you seem to have slept
through major portions of the discussion here.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
claimed a CIA presence in Cancun. It seems that you find it much easier
to argue against what people AREN'T saying than what they ARE saying.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
evaluate your silly web page based solely on the selectively-presented
contents of that very same web page. What nonsense!!
Martin Shackelford
organization called Team Judyth--that way, whatever ANYONE sympathetic
to Judyth says, he can later attribute it to "Team Judyth."
Martin
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Another gross mis-statement of the record, Barb.
>It is NOT true that Cancun "only became a geographical shorthand" after
>Deb Bert's posts. Whether or not you "recall" it, the archive will show
>references to it in quite a few posts before Deb posted her information.
>
>As for saying of the outlines that "Judyth circulated that," apparently
>you haven't been paying attention, Barb. HOWARD wrote them, and HOWARD
>circulated them to a small e-mail group for comment.
>
>I don't think you were born yesterday, Barb--but you seem to have slept
>through major portions of the discussion here.
>
>Martin
Maybe you have, Martin. This has all been tromped through before ...
with material written by Judyth already posted, multiple times. I said
thingsa as I recall it ... and here's a post from September '04 ....
not much else to say on this one, imo:
QUOTE
On 2 Sep 2004 11:15:42 -0400, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
>>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>>
>>She didn't write the dialogue, Barb.
>
>
>
><QUOTE ON>---------------------------
>
>When Team Judyth became aware of this problem [no Cancun in 1963], they
>did some quick footwork. First, they explained that it wasn't really
>Judyth who said that, but rather it was put in the manuscript by coauthor
>Howard Platzman. Judyth also claimed an interest in anthropology, and
>asserted that she was interested in Mayan ruins in the area.
>
>The first problem with this is that even an anthropological interest in
>this area isn't plausible.
>
>The claim that the "Cancun" business was put in by Platzman was
>quickly replaced by the claim that Judyth's "first agent" had added
>a bunch of nonsensical material to the manuscript. Supposedly, the version
>of the final chapter that was leaked (and appears on this web site) was a
>"partially corrected" version that somehow still had Cancun left in.
>
>The individuals to whom the chapter was sent were told nothing about it
>being "partially corrected." Indeed, it would be foolish to distribute
>a draft before corrections were complete.
>
>[...]
>
>But the comments at the head of the chapter say nothing about it being
>"partially corrected," and indeed state "the next section will deal with
>the last two telephone calls====thanks.j." This appears for all the world
>to be Judyth's introduction to material she has written. Even worse,
>Judyth herself e-mailed the draft with "Cancun" and "fine hotel" to
>several people, including her "coauthor" Howard Platzman. In the e-mail
>she says:
>
>[Judyth quote on]
>
>Dear Howard and all:
>
>I am resending the "end of line" realizing it isn't quite finished - it
>doesn't have a goodbye, for example, from Lee, no hang-up - I really
>couldn't go there. . . .
>
>I went over the attached file and it's a little better than the earlier
>version now, so please just delete the earlier version, unless you want to
>compare them and see how my memory gets contaminated! The only police
>names I ever heard was "unusual name" Tippit, a "Rocky," and somebody
>called "Wayne" - and that's it. File attached.....thanks everyone for your
>patience, this has been hard to finish. j
>
>In one of my emails that you might have, I also described some of the last
>phone call. it lasted a little shorter than the others, probably
>forty-five minutes, I'd guess. I'd like a copy, since I lost hundreds of
>emails, apparently to a hacker. So if you come across it, thanks for
>sending it along. It has a partial reconstruction of the phone call, and
>there is something I might have rendered a little better there. As you
>know, these conversations are reconstructions as best as I can recall
>them. . . .
>
>And of course, I do remember the gist of it all.
>
>Ok, that's all, folks.
>
>[File extracted: ENDofLINE.doc]
>
>Indeed, I hope that "end of line" will have the same effect on the house
>of cards that was constructed, that a similar end-of-line scenario had in
>the movie TRON!
>
>love from judyth [minor spelling and capitalization errors corrected]
>
>[Judyth quote off]
>
>The file attached to the e-mail is the precise draft included on this
>site, with the only change being a conversion to Acrobat .PDF format for
>web reading. So "Cancun" together with "fine hotel" was in a version that
>Judyth explicitly said she wrote, and which she e-mailed to several
>people.
>
><QUOTE OFF>--------------------------
>
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>
>Dave
END QUOTE
This is what I related recalling. It's not me making any gross
misstatement, Martin.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>No one has claimed any "fine hotels" in Cancun in 1963, nor has anyone
>claimed a CIA presence in Cancun. It seems that you find it much easier
>to argue against what people AREN'T saying than what they ARE saying.
>
>Martin
You'll go TO Cancun.
You'll stay in a fine hotel.
I'll BE THERE.
Speaks for itself, imo. Yet you argue against what it says.
Barb :-)
Peter Fokes
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:27:29 -0500, Peter Fokes
><justplai...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:59:22 -0800, Barb Junkkarinen
>><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>You seem to forget that while some people were born at night, none of
>>>us were born last night.
>>>
>>>Barb :-)
>>
>>
>>Ah, what a wonderful thought...
>>
>>I'd visit Dallas on the 100th anniversary :-)
>
>Let's do lunch ... then we can boogie over to DP and see how many
>shadows are falling south onto the cars on Elm ..... okay, so we may
>be boogieing reallllly slow by then.<g>
>
>Barb :-)
>>
>>
>>PF
Lets see, if we were born last night.... we'll be 58 in 2063.
Life span will probably be 101 by then!
Hey, not so slow...
PF
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>For John, it's much simpler to lump everyone together into a mythical
>organization called Team Judyth--that way, whatever ANYONE sympathetic
>to Judyth says, he can later attribute it to "Team Judyth."
>
Look at what I wrote, Martin.
I never said that Pamela was part of "Team Judyth."
I most certainly *have* said that you and Platzman are part of "Team
Judyth."
You've absolutely admitted it.
You've claimed, for example, to have been copied on every one of
Judyth's e-mails.
You've claimed Platzman wrote that outline. We've even heard that he
(or the agent) wrote the draft chapter (although I have the e-mail
that shows Judyth sending it out as her work).
So you and Platzman most certainly are part of "Team Judyth."
Deb Bert
On 1/28/05 8:42 AM, in article aojjv0to231verj6a...@4ax.com,
"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
There's no need to thank me, Pamela. I wasn't defending you.
It's just a moot point. Meaningless. Cancun has existed since 1787 and has
been on various maps since then. However, there were no fine hotels桔esting
or otherwise喫n Cancun in 1963. It was a sleepy fishing village...for the
most part, if you discount the CIA who tended to swarm around the Yucatan.
There were no major roads to and from Cancun in 1963. I've checked a
plethora of maps from 1960-63. There were several small runways for landing
small planes however, dotting the Yucatan landscape.
The closest "fine" hotel to Cancun in 1963 was located at Chichen Itza and
it's called "Hotel Mayaland." It was built in 1930. It would have been a
couple of hours by land from Cancun蟻 few minutes by air and there is a
small landing strip at Chichen. If anyone's looking to get away for the
weekend sometime, I highly recommend Hotel Mayaland. I do not recommend
flying there吉rass runway.
http://www.mayaland.com/hotels.html
--Deb
Barb Junkkarinen
And watch out for the restaurant too, eh? <g>
Barb :-)
>
>
>
Martin Shackelford
ideas of your own?
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Speaks for itself, perhaps, but it helps to know WHO was "speaking." I'm
only arguing against the misinformation posted about it.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
you invented. There is no "Team Judyth," John--except in your
imagination--but you've repeated the claim so often you believe it.
Martin
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Re-posting Reitzes is a bit desperate and pitiful, Barb. Running out of
>ideas of your own?
>
>Martin
You see, Martin, it's things like this that keep the nonsense banter
continuing. :-)
The text is Judyth's. I'm happy to stand on what I posted ... it goes
to an actual issue brought up on the newsgroup.
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>The agent was the only one writing dialogue during that period, Barb.
>Speaks for itself, perhaps, but it helps to know WHO was "speaking." I'm
>only arguing against the misinformation posted about it.
>
>Martin
Judyth clearly was aware ot it as she writes about working on the
section in what has been posted previously ... and she specifically
refers to the phone conversation and it not being completed ... no
"hangup" ending written yet. NOwhere does she say the Cancun/hotel
part of that very conversation is incorrect, or needs to be fixed, or
that she didn't write it, in fact, in that same note to the people she
was sending it all out to, she noted that she was working to make the
conversations as close as possbile to what she recalled.
Since you don't present evidence, all you can do is repeat your
excuses and commentary on others. That is of zero import to the issue,
and a waste of everyone's time. Unsupported meaningless mantras no
matter how oft repeated remain nothing but unsupported meaningless
mantras.
I prefer to look at what we do have in the public domain and what can
best be made of it. This whole conversation thing speaks pretty well
for itself ... thanks to Judyth and what she herself wrote to others
about it.
Barb :-)
Deb Bert
On 1/29/05 7:53 PM, in article 0gfov09jbguhib9cp...@4ax.com,
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
Oh hey...no kidding. Salmonella is NOT fun; I speak from experience, as you
know... :-(
--Deb ;-)
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Deb Bert
On 1/28/05 6:35 PM, in article 41fadcb9....@news.alt.net, "John
McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
I never said there were, John. Mayaland Hotel is a couple hours from what
was "Cancun" in '63.
>
> Indeed, I don't think anybody can show any CIA presence in *Cancun.*
> Maybe elsewhere in Yucatan.
Repeating what I wrote: "... But we do know that the CIA sure found the
Yucatan peninsula entertaining and compelling during that time ..."
--Deb
Deb Bert
On 1/28/05 7:45 PM, in article ctd10f$4...@dispatch.concentric.net, "Martin
Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> John remembers what he wants to remember, Deb.
>
> Martin
That appears to be the case, Martin.
--Deb
Deb Bert
On 1/28/05 1:59 PM, in article 406lv0pr7qve5su3p...@4ax.com,
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2005 11:40:06 -0600, Martin Shackelford
> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>> Another phony attempt to claim a "gotcha"--there was never a denial that
>> "Cancun" appeared in the e-mail to Mary Ferrell--just a discussion of
>> how you grossly misinterpreted that fact.
>> Nor has anyone ever said there was a Cancun TOURIST SITE in 1963. The
>> references to Cancun were simply a geographical shorthand--something you
>> keep failing to acknowledge.
>
> What you seem to fail to remember is that Cancun only became a
> geographical shorthand AFTER Deb Bert posted the info on Cancun ...
> before that, we heard than Judyth hadn't said Cancun ... then it was
> shown that she had said Cancun, then it was that they weren't really
> going TO Cancun but to the ruins, then .... well ... it went on and
> on. I, at least, don't recall this geographicalkshorthand pap until
> after Deb posted the info on Cancun adn the hotel at the ruins. You
> grasped it and have used it ever since.
As I recall, the posts that were going around when I came into the debate
had to do with Judyth--at that time--saying that she was told to travel to
the area of Cancun in 1963 and saying that she knew that Cancun did not
exist in 1963. She said that LHO had referred to a "fine hotel" jokingly.
They were then supposed to travel to Mayan ruins.
When I read that, I knew that Cancun *had* existed well before 1963, just
not as a tourist resort, and thus there were no real hotels, fine or
otherwise, there in 1963. Yet, I knew that Mayaland had existed long before
1963 as well--and it was on the door-step of Mayan ruins. But even though I
had learned this in 1990 from a visit to the region, I researched it, found
maps, bought old Mexico road maps off eBay, bugged the people in Tech's
library to death until they produced 1963 vintage maps... (That seemed to
really knot their panties for some reason!)
Anyway. I was informed via the back-channel communication on this NG that
Judyth had previously spoken of going to "Cancun,"--nothing about the
vicinity of Cancun, area of Cancun, what now serves as Cancun. No--it was
"Cancun." And then there was controversy about the spelling of Cancun with
a "K." And I was informed that the ruins were a recent addition to her
story.
My sole purpose for posting the maps and information about Cancun and
Mayaland were to set the record straight--Cancun has existed for hundreds of
years--just not as the modern resort of Cancun. Cancun was, for hundreds of
years, a sleepy fishing village. It did exist in 1963.
The issue of Hotel Mayaland is the same thing蟻 very fine hotel did
exist--in the area--in 1963. My purpose for posting that was to set the
record straight as well. These things did exist. (And still do.)
But, keep in mind that Judyth was saying **at that time** that LHO was
joking about "a fine hotel." That she knew Cancun did not exist. And that
there was an interest in Mayan ruins.
There does seem to be a problem with the story because after I posted proof
that Cancun did exist and that there was a fine hotel *in the area,* I
observed a gradual shift in the story back towards Cancun and a fine hotel.
Had the story remained static--"He said **CANCUN**! He said 'A FINE HOTEL'
and Mayan Ruins. There had to be a fine hotel somewhere around there!"
Then, we would have some of Judyth's story being proven *possible.*
But that's not been my experience with the story. Again--Judyth was backing
off of Cancun and the fine hotel; she was not sticking with the story that I
walked into.
Now, I have not read anything that Judyth has written in manuscript form.
Therefore, I do not personally know what her story was. I do know what I've
been told it was from credible sources.
Likewise, I don't know if these story line problems are a function of memory
glitches or buckling under pressure or something else not so easily
explained away.
I do know that we are missing some time for LHO. His whereabouts during the
first week of September 1963 are particularly intriguing to me.
Was he tupping Judyth? I don't know. I wasn't there.
Daniel Powers, a marine who served with LHO, tells us that LHO acquired a
Japanese girlfriend when LHO was stationed in Japan while in the MC.
LHO apparently dated a fair number of women while he was living in the USSR.
He proposed marriage to two of them. He married one.
We have been told that LHO got it on with Sylvia Duran (from the Mexican
City Cuban Consulate) in Sept. '63.
According to George de Mohrenschildt, LHO mattress danced with a Japanese
chick in Dallas, while he was married to Marina. Marina, according to de
Mohrenschildt, became hysterically angry over this affair.
We can find corroborating evidence for all of these flings--except Judyth's.
Judyth never appeared on the radar until she put herself there.
Does that mean it absolutely didn't happen? Not necessarily. But we have
yet to see any proof positive. And when she veered away from her story just
before I proved it *possible* (*not probable--but possible*), that did not
bode well for her. In fact, it gave her credibility a big tug for the
worse.
At least, that is how I recall the chain of events.
I believe that the debate about the existence of Cancun and the hotel are
moot points; they both exist--but the hotel did *not* exist where Judyth
originally located it--facetiously or otherwise . I believe Judyth's
backing away from those points are important considerations. She did back
away. If she now returns to the Cancun story, and places the hotel in
Chichen Itza--a place where it *never* had been before I acquainted her with
Mayaland--then...Houston, we have a very big problem snowballing itself.
--Deb
...
Barb Junkkarinen
Well said, Deb. And you are right about the sudden shift. It's those
sorts of shifts that have cast a big credibility problem over the
whole tale. Too many.
Barb :-)
>
>
>...
John McAdams
Are you in fact admitting that Judyth's "go to Cancun" and "stay in a
fine hotel" is implausible?
.John
John McAdams
Folks at Marquette's library are usually quite good natured about such
requests. :-)
>Anyway. I was informed via the back-channel communication on this NG that
>Judyth had previously spoken of going to "Cancun,"--nothing about the
>vicinity of Cancun, area of Cancun, what now serves as Cancun. No--it was
>"Cancun." And then there was controversy about the spelling of Cancun with
>a "K." And I was informed that the ruins were a recent addition to her
>story.
>
>My sole purpose for posting the maps and information about Cancun and
>Mayaland were to set the record straight--Cancun has existed for hundreds of
>years--just not as the modern resort of Cancun. Cancun was, for hundreds of
>years, a sleepy fishing village. It did exist in 1963.
>
Fair enough.
>The issue of Hotel Mayaland is the same thing‹a very fine hotel did
>exist--in the area--in 1963. My purpose for posting that was to set the
>record straight as well. These things did exist. (And still do.)
>
Ditto.
>But, keep in mind that Judyth was saying **at that time** that LHO was
>joking about "a fine hotel." That she knew Cancun did not exist. And that
>there was an interest in Mayan ruins.
>
>There does seem to be a problem with the story because after I posted proof
>that Cancun did exist and that there was a fine hotel *in the area,* I
>observed a gradual shift in the story back towards Cancun and a fine hotel.
>
>Had the story remained static--"He said **CANCUN**! He said 'A FINE HOTEL'
>and Mayan Ruins. There had to be a fine hotel somewhere around there!"
>Then, we would have some of Judyth's story being proven *possible.*
>
>But that's not been my experience with the story. Again--Judyth was backing
>off of Cancun and the fine hotel; she was not sticking with the story that I
>walked into.
>
She's done that about several issues.
>Now, I have not read anything that Judyth has written in manuscript form.
>Therefore, I do not personally know what her story was. I do know what I've
>been told it was from credible sources.
>
>Likewise, I don't know if these story line problems are a function of memory
>glitches or buckling under pressure or something else not so easily
>explained away.
>
>I do know that we are missing some time for LHO. His whereabouts during the
>first week of September 1963 are particularly intriguing to me.
>
>Was he tupping Judyth? I don't know. I wasn't there.
>
>Daniel Powers, a marine who served with LHO, tells us that LHO acquired a
>Japanese girlfriend when LHO was stationed in Japan while in the MC.
>
Plausible. Oswald clearly had sex with a few women before he married
Marina.
>LHO apparently dated a fair number of women while he was living in the USSR.
>He proposed marriage to two of them. He married one.
>
>We have been told that LHO got it on with Sylvia Duran (from the Mexican
>City Cuban Consulate) in Sept. '63.
>
I think you'll find little evidence of that.
>According to George de Mohrenschildt, LHO mattress danced with a Japanese
>chick in Dallas, while he was married to Marina. Marina, according to de
>Mohrenschildt, became hysterically angry over this affair.
>
This was from the 70s, and not his 64 testimony, right?
Highly suspect.
>We can find corroborating evidence for all of these flings--except Judyth's.
>Judyth never appeared on the radar until she put herself there.
>
Yep.
>Does that mean it absolutely didn't happen? Not necessarily. But we have
>yet to see any proof positive. And when she veered away from her story just
>before I proved it *possible* (*not probable--but possible*), that did not
>bode well for her. In fact, it gave her credibility a big tug for the
>worse.
>
>At least, that is how I recall the chain of events.
>
>I believe that the debate about the existence of Cancun and the hotel are
>moot points; they both exist--but the hotel did *not* exist where Judyth
>originally located it--facetiously or otherwise . I believe Judyth's
>backing away from those points are important considerations. She did back
>away. If she now returns to the Cancun story, and places the hotel in
>Chichen Itza--a place where it *never* had been before I acquainted her with
>Mayaland--then...Houston, we have a very big problem snowballing itself.
>
The latest version I've heard in from November, 2003 (TMWKK), and
there she says Mérida was the place she and Lee would escape to.
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Sorry, John, but I'm not a member of a non-existent organization that
>you invented. There is no "Team Judyth," John--except in your
>imagination--but you've repeated the claim so often you believe it.
>
The message at the bottom of Judyth's e-mails, posted by Jim Olmstead,
explicitly refers to a group of people she trusts and who have free
use of the material there.
And you and Platzman are *admittedly* part of Team Judyth. You've
been claiming that you were sent copies of all her e-mails from early
on.
.John
--
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>The agent was the only one writing dialogue during that period, Barb.
>Speaks for itself, perhaps, but it helps to know WHO was "speaking." I'm
>only arguing against the misinformation posted about it.
>
But Judyth sent out an e-mail with the documents (draft chapter
portions), claiming she had written them!
Was she lying and claiming the agent's work as her own?
.John
--
Deb Bert
On 2/3/05 9:33 PM, in article 4202ecda...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu, "John
McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
I have nothing to "admit" as far as Judyth's story goes. It's her story,
not mine.
But, I addressed the Cancun/hotel stuff in a previously, John. Perhaps
you missed it:
As I recall, the posts that were going around when I came into the debate
had to do with Judyth--at that time--saying that she was told to travel to
the area of Cancun in 1963 and saying that she knew that Cancun did not
exist in 1963. She said that LHO had referred to a "fine hotel" jokingly.
They were then supposed to travel to Mayan ruins.
When I read that, I knew that Cancun *had* existed well before 1963, just
not as a tourist resort, and thus there were no real hotels, fine or
otherwise, there in 1963. Yet, I knew that Mayaland had existed long
before 1963 as well--and it was on the door-step of Mayan ruins. But even
though I had learned this in 1990 from a visit to the region, I researched
it, found maps, bought old Mexico road maps off eBay, bugged the people in
Tech's library to death until they produced 1963 vintage maps... (That
seemed to really knot their panties for some reason!)
Anyway. I was informed via the back-channel communication on this NG that
Judyth had previously spoken of going to "Cancun,"--nothing about the
vicinity of Cancun, area of Cancun, what now serves as Cancun. No--it was
"Cancun." And then there was controversy about the spelling of Cancun
with a "K." And I was informed that the ruins were a recent addition to
her story.
My sole purpose for posting the maps and information about Cancun and
Mayaland were to set the record straight--Cancun has existed for hundreds
of years--just not as the modern resort of Cancun. Cancun was, for
hundreds of years, a sleepy fishing village. It did exist in 1963.
The issue of Hotel Mayaland is the same thing‹a very fine hotel did
exist--in the area--in 1963. My purpose for posting that was to set the
record straight as well. These things did exist. (And still do.)
But, keep in mind that Judyth was saying **at that time** that LHO was
joking about "a fine hotel." That she knew Cancun did not exist. And
that there was an interest in Mayan ruins.
There does seem to be a problem with the story because after I posted
proof that Cancun did exist and that there was a fine hotel *in the area,*
I observed a gradual shift in the story back towards Cancun and a fine
hotel.
Had the story remained static--"He said **CANCUN**! He said 'A FINE
HOTEL' and Mayan Ruins. There had to be a fine hotel somewhere around
there!" Then, we would have some of Judyth's story being proven
*possible.*
But that's not been my experience with the story. Again--Judyth was
backing off of Cancun and the fine hotel; she was not sticking with the
story that I walked into.
Now, I have not read anything that Judyth has written in manuscript form.
Therefore, I do not personally know what her story was. I do know what
I've been told it was from credible sources.
Likewise, I don't know if these story line problems are a function of
memory glitches or buckling under pressure or something else not so easily
explained away.
I do know that we are missing some time for LHO. His whereabouts during
the first week of September 1963 are particularly intriguing to me.
Was he tupping Judyth? I don't know. I wasn't there.
Daniel Powers, a marine who served with LHO, tells us that LHO acquired a
Japanese girlfriend when LHO was stationed in Japan while in the MC.
LHO apparently dated a fair number of women while he was living in the
USSR. He proposed marriage to two of them. He married one.
We have been told that LHO got it on with Sylvia Duran (from the Mexican
City Cuban Consulate) in Sept. '63.
According to George de Mohrenschildt, LHO mattress danced with a Japanese
chick in Dallas, while he was married to Marina. Marina, according to de
Mohrenschildt, became hysterically angry over this affair.
We can find corroborating evidence for all of these flings--except
Judyth's. Judyth never appeared on the radar until she put herself there.
Does that mean it absolutely didn't happen? Not necessarily. But we have
yet to see any proof positive. And when she veered away from her story
just before I proved it *possible* (*not probable--but possible*), that
did not bode well for her. In fact, it gave her credibility a big tug for
the worse.
At least, that is how I recall the chain of events.
I believe that the debate about the existence of Cancun and the hotel are
moot points; they both exist--but the hotel did *not* exist where Judyth
originally located it--facetiously or otherwise . I believe Judyth's
backing away from those points are important considerations. She did back
away. If she now returns to the Cancun story, and places the hotel in
Chichen Itza--a place where it *never* had been before I acquainted her
with Mayaland--then...Houston, we have a very big problem snowballing
itself.
--Deb
Deb Bert
On 2/3/05 9:44 PM, in article 4202ed8c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu, "John
McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
Ah--OK, you probably did miss the previous post I mentioned, so you can
cancel that response if you wish.
You know, I would have expected Tech's people to have been good natured
too, but they thought I was totally nuts to have wondered if they kept
"old maps." "Why keep old ones when you get the new ones in," they asked.
They just toss the old ones out. "Yikes," I replied! "What about vintage
research?" "Well, we have books on old cars."
I kid you not. One guy said that.
It seems that was tortured out of her, so I would agree that it's suspect.
Beat someone long enough, and they'll say anything.
>
>
>> According to George de Mohrenschildt, LHO mattress danced with a Japanese
>> chick in Dallas, while he was married to Marina. Marina, according to de
>> Mohrenschildt, became hysterically angry over this affair.
>>
>
> This was from the 70s, and not his 64 testimony, right?
>
> Highly suspect.
It's from de Mohrenschildt's unpublished manuscript. I believe that was
unveiled in the '70's, yes.
>
>> We can find corroborating evidence for all of these flings--except Judyth's.
>> Judyth never appeared on the radar until she put herself there.
>>
>
> Yep.
>
>
>> Does that mean it absolutely didn't happen? Not necessarily. But we have
>> yet to see any proof positive. And when she veered away from her story just
>> before I proved it *possible* (*not probable--but possible*), that did not
>> bode well for her. In fact, it gave her credibility a big tug for the
>> worse.
>>
>> At least, that is how I recall the chain of events.
>>
>> I believe that the debate about the existence of Cancun and the hotel are
>> moot points; they both exist--but the hotel did *not* exist where Judyth
>> originally located it--facetiously or otherwise . I believe Judyth's
>> backing away from those points are important considerations. She did back
>> away. If she now returns to the Cancun story, and places the hotel in
>> Chichen Itza--a place where it *never* had been before I acquainted her with
>> Mayaland--then...Houston, we have a very big problem snowballing itself.
>>
>
> The latest version I've heard in from November, 2003 (TMWKK), and
> there she says Mérida was the place she and Lee would escape to.
And *I* had not heard whisper one about Merida, until today.
*That's* a problem. But then, I'm a late-comer to the story and can only
go on what I've heard the last two years.
--Deb
Martin Shackelford
I are "admittedly" part of such a fictional group, except in your own
vivid imagination.
Martin
John Hill
news:BE285474.AAF6%deb...@cox.net...
Hey, even though it's West Texas, you CAN get new maps there. :-)
> >> Anyway. I was informed via the back-channel communication on this NG
that
> >> Judyth had previously spoken of going to "Cancun,"--nothing about the
> >> vicinity of Cancun, area of Cancun, what now serves as Cancun. No--it
was
> >> "Cancun." And then there was controversy about the spelling of Cancun
with
> >> a "K." And I was informed that the ruins were a recent addition to her
> >> story.
> >>
> >> My sole purpose for posting the maps and information about Cancun and
> >> Mayaland were to set the record straight--Cancun has existed for
hundreds of
> >> years--just not as the modern resort of Cancun. Cancun was, for
hundreds of
> >> years, a sleepy fishing village. It did exist in 1963.
> >>
> >
> > Fair enough.
> >
> >
> >> The issue of Hotel Mayaland is the same thing > >> exist--in the
What did you hear me say??? I deny everything !!! :-)
--
John Hill (joisa)