Judyth: From the Beginning, Part 15
Dave Reitzes
Subject: Re: Me, Baker and Lifton
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 07:38:34 -0400
From: David Lifton <DLi...@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
To Matt Allison and anyone else who is reading these posts: there are no
fabrications in anything I have posted. What I have reported comes from
the conversation I have had with her.
Regarding the question of when Judyth spoke last with Oswald:
Apparently, in a prior post, I said it was on the 22nd (i.e. 11/22/63). I
was mistaken. She claimed the last time she spoke with LHO was on the 20th
(i.e., 11/20/63).
To me, this is a rather minor detail, and an innocuous mistake. If I
wasn1t in such a rush, and had not relied on my memory alone, this error
wouldn1t have occurred. In any event, the real issue is what Judyth
advised Oswald to do just prior to the assassination, not whether this
conversation was on 11/20 or 11/22.
According to what she told me: it was during that final conversation that
Judyth (who told me that Lee knew he was going to be made a patsy in the
Kennedy assassination) said to him something like: Honey, you could take
some laxatives. You don1t have to refuse. Just say you1re sick. But LHO,
who knew he was being set up, and who knew it all, said he had to appear;
that if he showed up, there1d be one less bullet aimed at JFK.
Matt Allison has charged that I made up falsehoods about this
conversation.
Allison is wrong. I did no such thing.
The problem is not me, but the story itself. The conversation itselfi.e.
Judyth1s storyis loaded with implausibilities which I found so ridiculous
that I spent little time analyzing it after my initial expenditure of time
(say, about 8 hours) back in March 2000. At that time, I carefully
reviewed what this woman had told me and concluded she was either mentally
unbalanced or a total fraud. I expressed this opinion in an email to two
people who were involved in the initial introduction, which was the reason
I called her in the first place.
I have a nearly verbatim record of the conversation with Judyth.
Anybody who has read BEST EVIDENCE would know that I would never have a
conversation with a witness of this potential importance without being
prepared to make an unimpeachable record. Remember: I was told, at the
time, that she was possibly some sort of historical find, who was genuine,
and was Oswald1s girlfriend. And the people who performed the introduction
are credible, and were vouching for her bona fides.
When I telephoned her, I had no idea that I would conclude she was a
fraud. To the contrary, I was perfectly preparedif she was the genuine
articleto mention her in my own work, and mention her book in my
bibliography. Why not? Again, I stress: IF she was genuine.
After the conversation (which was in a way self-impeaching because of the
number of whoppers it contained, and her whole demeanor) I couldn1t
understand why any competent researcher would believe her, and I began
wondering where she was getting her "factoids" from. (I may have more to
say about this in the future).
With the exception of an email summary I sent to my two friends, I said
nothing about this lady, or her story, for more than half a year. I did so
as a courtesy. But also: I really couldn1t believe that any competent TV
producer would take what she saying seriously, and I didn't want to get
involved and be made the scapegoat for why her story could not find a
national media outlet.
Again, if I got the date of the last conversation wrong, that1s my error.
It seems to me a small issue compared to the larger things at stake herea
completely false "global" view of the assassination, apparently believed
(and being promulgated) by a number of JFK researchers on the Internet,
who have accorded this woman credibility and bought her absurd story hook,
line, and sinker.
DSL
P.S. A sample of other whopperssmall and largebased on what Judyth told me
in March, 2000:
1. Robert Kennedy called over to Spring Hill College in Mobile, when Lee
addressed the Jesuits on July 27, 1963 (source for Judyth1s RFK "add- on":
Gus Russo1s book??)
2. At the cancer lab (which, I believe, she said was in Dave Ferrie1s
apartment), they processed" 4,000 mice per month.
3. She found her (first) agent by putting "honest" and "agent" into a
search engine on the internet. (Comment: Just think: if the internet
existed back in 1861, Honest Abe could have been elected that way).
4. She didn1t know of the Garrison investigation at the time it was
happening.
5. She said that she was in love with Lee and wanted to clear his name.
(She would break down and start crying when she said things like this).
6. FINANCIAL:
Her personal income is approximately $12,000 per year.
She had declared bankruptcy in the recent past
She recently turned down 1 million dollars from a major tabloid (she
didn1t make clear whyjust that she did), but the implication is that she
didn1t trust them to treat her account accurately).
PPS: Judyth1s previous connection with Kennedy books and data:
(A): based on what she told me:
1. She had read McMillan1s "Marina and Lee"
2. She had read Mailer1s "Oswald1s Tale"
3. The first thing she didin cyberspacewas punch in Kennedy, and
immediately learned of McAdams, and so read posts by him (presumably on
his web site). She was angered by McAdams "visciousnes" because it showed
her Lee gave his life for nothing.
[sic - no "4"]
5. She knew about the Weberman web site (and its my assumption, from the
way she talked of it, that she read material there too)
(B): From what I have learned from my own personal inquiries:
1. She has a CD rom about the JFK case which contains detailed
chronological information
2. The library at the university where she is a student has the 26 volumes
of the Warren Commission, and healthy stock of all the major conspiracy
books.
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Me, Baker and Lifton
Date: 26 Oct 2000 06:17:00 GMT
From: mshack <msh...@concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
To summarize:
Lifton concedes the conversation wasn't two hours, but closer to the 90
minutes Judyth described. Lifton concedes she didn't talk with Oswald the
morning of the assassination, but two days earlier, as Judyth has
described.
Lifton insists that his posts cantained "no fabrications." Apparently he's
just careless as hell--on times, on dates.
His mistakes are "innocuous." His interpretations of what she said, if
they contain any apparent errors, are "evidence of fraud."
He admits that he spent "little time analyzing" her account. He admits
that he makes errors when he relies "on memory alone." And six months
after a conversation, he wants us to believe his version of it is more
accurate than descriptions given by Judyth the same day or the next.
He says he has "a nearly verbatim record." What does this mean? Notes,
shorthand, a tape recording of the call? And if anything other than the
latter, how do we note his notes are accurate or reliable.
He keeps promising more "in the future," and asks us to rely on his
unsupported opinion in the meantime. Why should we?
He offers what he considers "proofs" that Judyth got her account from
other sources, overlooking in his ignorance the fact that she had written
out her account before she knew about those sources. She was totally
unfamiliar with the literature when this all started. WELL after her
account was written out, she began to look at some of the sources David
mentioned. They were NOT sources for her account. They did in some cases
confirm aspects of it. She learned of the Weberman website only early this
year.
The "CD-ROM" mentioned by Lifton is the Mary Ferrell database. If she has
it at all, she only acquired it recently. This is another source she
wasn't aware of until well after she had written out her account.
It's no surprise that any library has books on the subject. The surprise
is that Lifton feels that's sufficient evidence to prove that:
1) She read them.
2) She concocted her account from them.
Lifton has managed to gather many bits of data. He has no idea what
sequence they go in, however, and his chronology is totally fucked up. As
a result, his conclusions are completely unreliable.
That methodology might explain why he and Jim Fetzer agree on so much.
Martin
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Me, Baker and Lifton
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 07:38:34 -0400
From: David Lifton <DLi...@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Martin Shackelford is hopelessly entwined in an absurd story concocted by
Judyth Baker. He has become her de facto promoter and agent.
Now he is mad because slowly, and item by item, this story is unraveling.
Basically, because of the major role he has played, he has been a party to
the creation of his own wilderness of mirrors.
In a recent post, Shackelford refers to a media setback. But of course. No
responsible media outlet -and I stress the world "responsible"--is going
to deal with this story. It is absurd on its face. And as it unravels,
and is seen for what it is, not only will Judyth Baker's credibility end
up in a shambles; so will Martin Shackelford's.
Here are two more things Judyth told me last March:
(1) Judyth told me that she co-wrote a science fiction story with Lee
Oswald.
Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this tale, too, Martin? and you
have the manuscript? Is it in her hand only-or is some of Lee Oswald's
purported handwriting in that document? Is that one of the documents you
have been trying to hawk to media outlets? Is this one of the Oswald
so-called "writings"??
(2) When I asked Judyth how she would answer the question of how she could
have had so much foreknowledge and yet not reported it to the authorities
(prior to 11/22/63), part of her long rambling answer was that, in order
to get greater protection for JFK on his Dallas visit, Lee fomented the
Stevenson incident. That's right: Lee fomented the Adlai Stevenson
incident so that the authorities would beef up protection on Kennedy.
Question to Martin Shackelford: Did she tell you this tale, too? Any
comment? Do you find it reasonable? Just another one of the adventures
in the life of (or perhaps, more accurately, in the mind of) Judyth
Wonderwoman?
I also want to repeat, and remind anyone reading this post, of other
things she said to me last March, 2000 (some of these are repeats from a
previous post; some are new):
ITEM: Judyth told me that she (and her co-workers in Florida) "knew" the
assassination was going to happen, and so prepared to watch it on TV.
(Just consider the implications of that statement, which was said most
deliberately).
ITEM: Judyth told me that her income was $12.000 per year and that she had
declared bankruptcy in the recent past. She also claimed that she turned
down one million dollars (or some huge comparable sum of money) from a
tabloid for her story.
Question to Martin Shackelford: Did she tell you this? Do you find that
plausible? That a woman in such modest economic circumstances would turn
down a million dollars?
ITEM: Judyth told me that despite her connection with all these evens in
1963, she had no idea of-and never heard of-the Garrison investigation at
the time it was occurring. And in fact, Judyth said she didn't get
re-interested in all this until she saw the movie JFK, in 1991. (And she
even had the details wrong there: it was not released as video until some
time later in 1992, yet Judyth said one of her children brought the video
home; and that's when she first saw the movie-on video, in 1991).
Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this? Forget the error about
format. Do you find that plausible-that she didn't know about the
Garrison investigation at the time it was occurring?
ITEM: Judyth told me that at the "cancer lab" at Dave Ferrie's apartment,
they "processed" 4,000 mice per month.
Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this, too? Do you find that
plausible? Do you understand what it would mean to be "processing" 4,000
mice per month? (Martin: do you know anyone who has a pet gerbil? Do you
know what it would mean to have 4,000 of them house in Ferrie's
apartment?)
ITEM: Judyth told me, in connection with her alleged knowledge of Lee's
visit to lecture at the Jesuit college at Spring Hill, Alabama, that
Robert Kennedy made a phone call there.
Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this? Do you find that
plausible? That Robert Kennedy was calling Lee Oswald at the Jesuit House
of Studies, and that she, Judyth Baker, knew about this?
SUMMARY COMMENT: I don't think one has to know the "order" in which these
facts go to find them implausible. These items are---individually or
collectively-inherently implausible.
Do you believe the story of Goldilocks and the three bears because the
story is told in some particular order? (Maybe you do!!)
Again I say to anyone reading this post: Martin Shackelford, by becoming
one of Judyth's enablers and promoters, has hopelessly entangled himself
in a wilderness of mirrors that is partly of his own making.
At the point when it finally dawns that this story is a complete fantasy
and a fabrication ("corroborated" here and there by well-known kernals of
truth that this woman absorbed from the public record) her credibility is
going to go down the drain, and Martin Shackelford's, along with it, for
promoting and supporting this ridiculous story.
I have seldom seen such irresponsible behavior and such a total lack of
judgment on the part of a JFK researcher.
DSL
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Me, Baker and Lifton
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:32:50 -0500
From: The Great Unwashed <gu@new_times.net> [Joe Riehl]
Organization: Louisiana Megalith
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
In article
<E0A6346223B9A4CE.839F7E7F...@lp.airnews.net>,
wpa...@kendaco.telebyte.net says...
> Or is the only "appropriate forum" one that results in a
> financial return?
> Just Wonderin'
> Bill Parker
Mrs. Baker's former agent demanded confidentiality agreements because he
invested funds which he wished to recoup through an exclusive book
contract. I believe that Mrs. Baker is now in the process of
renegotiating those agreements, but the remain binding on those who
signed.
JR
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Me, Baker and Lifton
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:37:34 -0500
From: The Great Unwashed <gu@new_times.net>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
In article <8t7c9n$rg1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, joez...@my-deja.com
says...
...> Because you're withholding the info pending some $, it appears.
None of these complaints would have been made had not some details
appeared here on the newsgroup. Unfortunately they did, and now Mrs.
Baker is being asked to release a manuscript on which she has been working
for almost two years. As someone who is concerned both with the JFK case
and with Mrs. Baker's well being, I continue to counsel her not to release
information until she has a proper forum. That does not necessarily mean
money ($), but an audience willing to give a full hearing to what she has
to say. At that time, all parties will be able to check out what she
says, and if any fraud is present, it will be detected.
JR
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Matt Allison: The Pursuit of Truth, Wherever It Leads
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:49:03 -0500
From: The Great Unwashed <gu@new_times.net>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Debra,
I agree with what you say below. All the facts about Mrs. Baker should be
laid on the table as soon as practicable. Her story is very complex, and
offers a number of opportunities for further investigation, which will
either confirm or undermine her story. It is a story which justifies the
energies that a number of people have expended on it already, and whether
truth or fiction, it will be released in full. Platzman, Shackleford and
a number of others whith whom Mrs. Baker has corresponded will see to
that. It may take some months before that happens, but it will happen.
Then everyone here will be able to judge for themselves. If Mrs. Baker
provides lines of inquiry which yield new information, her efforts will
merit praise. If not, and her story remains unverifiable, then a number
of people will, as you say below, "learn from such investigations, whether
they prove fruitful or not."
I know that this is ultimately an unsatisfactory answer, but it is the
only answer any of us can give now.
Thanks for crediting some of us with good faith.
JR
In article <39f6792d...@news.earthlink.net>,
debhar...@yahoo.com
says...
> If there were more people with the purity of intellectual curiosity...
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Oswald the bookworm
Date: 26 Oct 2000 00:23:08 -0500
From: mshack <msh...@concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Wrong again, John.
Joe Riehl saw Judyth's earliest written account of her relationship with
Oswald, and talked with her about other aspects of her life.
What Publisher's Weekly ran was very erroneous, and apparently issued
indirectly from her agent, misreporting some fragments of information.
Salon's columnist got her information from the Publisher's Weekly story,
and later only partly corrected it.
The earliest account I saw was, according to Joe (not just Judyth) the
same as the account she originally wrote. In the interim, her agent had
produced a "commercial" version of the account with some encrustrations
that have since been taken back out--maybe that version somehow led to
some misunderstandings.
The essential elements of her account have remained very consistent. And
there are obviously ridiculous claims in the PW and Salon pieces, such as
the fiction that she had fled the country and was living in Norway at the
time of the article. Total garbage.
Martin
...> Your argument, IOW, is circular. All evidence that impeaches
Judyth is
> wrong. How do you know? Because Judyth says so.
> .John
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Me, Baker and Lifton
Date: 26 Oct 2000 05:55:46 GMT
From: mshack <msh...@concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Let me explain this very slowly, Bill.
Howard agreed to help edit the book. In order to do this, he was
required by Judyth's agent to sign a confidentiality agreement, which
only applies prior to publication.
I didn't sign anything, but I gave my word not to release information
pre-publication without permission.
An "appropriate forum" has nothing to do with financial return. It has
to do with being able to present the story fully and coherently.
That said, the agent retains some control, and isn't likely to agree
to
simply giving the whole story away on the Net.
As for posting it on the Net, it isn't my story to do with as I
please.
Nor is it Matt's. It's Judyth's.
The entire story will come out. I don't know yet exactly when or how,
but there is no question that it will.
No one is going to simply dump it in serial form on the newsgroups,
however, nor try to create a website to fully tell the story--not
something any of us know how to do, anyway, nor can we afford to do
it.
I doubt that anyone involved in this will ever realize anything close to
the money they've already put into this, even in a best-case scenario, and
none of us has focused on financial gain as a significant element in this
at any point, nor are we likely ever to do so.
I know that "They're just in it for the money" is one of the oldest
canards leveled against CTers. It's always been bullshit. Don't let anyone
delude you into thinking it's a real factor here.
Martin
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Me, Baker and Lifton
Date: 26 Oct 2000 08:17:55 GMT
From: altas...@aol.com (Altasrecrd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
>msh...@concentric.net
>As for posting it on the Net, it isn't my story to do
>with as I please.
Martin, I must ask you, if Ruth Paine had said "it's
my story, and I'll do with it as I please" would you
have agreed with her?
Do people that are privy to knowledge about a homicide
and wish to exonerate the accused say to a judge "it's my
story and I'll do with it as I please"?
If a newspaper reporter found a startling unknown
witness that had info on a homicide, how long would
he/she wait to report it until the witness found what
they considered a venue to their liking?
For a while maybe. But 17 months??
At what point do we start to recognise the rights of
people to know what is going on?
I waited a *long* time before I even mentioned I was involved
in this investigation. You've been teasing the LNrs for awhile
now.
Remember the post "Martin's secret witness is Judyth Baker"?
I remember emails around that time that said
"The Cat is out of the Bag". Indeed, starting then, it really was.
>No one is going to simply dump it in serial form on the newsgroups,
I don't think anyone ever asked for that.
>nor try to create a website to fully tell the story-
Why not? Weberman did. You'll certainly reach more people.
Explain to me why the full story shouldn't come out on a web site.
>not something any of us know how to do, anyway, nor can
>we afford to do it.
I can help, and will if you care to do such a thing.
>An "appropriate forum" has nothing to do with financial return.
>It has to do with being able to present the story fully and >coherently
A web site seems as perfect a forum as any I can think of.
Remember Martin, if the story is true, then there is no reason
to worry about what someone will say about it, is there?
It's either true or it isn't.
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: David Lifton: Time to back up your claims
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 23:27:25 GMT
From: dli...@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Joe Zircon:
Speaking as a writer and not as someone who believes Judyth's story:
Martin Shackelford is in the unenviable position of having a number of
people who would like to see her book, but she doesn't have a publisher.
Of course, she (and he) have the perfect right to say: Wait till its
published.
The problem is: Shackelford opened his big mouth and started playing "I've
got a Secret" to an Internet news group.
The result is that everyone now would like to see the product; everyone
wants (from Shakelford's point of view) "instant gratification. Alas, the
product is not yet ready. That is--no publisher; no tv outlet, etc.
Shackelford has his own self to blame for this situation. He is the one
who created the Catch-22 in which he now finds himself.
It is my opinion that he not only doesn't have credible evidence, he also
has shown an abysmal lack of discretion. This second matter is relevnt
because it goes to the question of whether Shackelford has common sense,
and has decent judgment--which is part of the process of judging him as an
evaluator of evidence. Evidence from Judyth, for instance.
Maybe the only solution is for him to go cold turkey on Judyth, say
absolutely nothing further; attempt to get a publisher; and then, if that
fails, to simply erect a website and distribute the information that way.
I believe she could still retain her copyright, and if there was still a
legitimate demand for her story, she could get a publisher later. This
isn't the greatest way to go, but otherwise, this thing is going to keep
being dribbled out, factoid by factoid: partly because of Martin, party
because of Judyth, partly because of Allison, partly because of me, and
partly because of the dynamic that too much is now out for people to want
to sit back and politely wait while Judyth and Martin go about marketing
what, to all outward appearances, appears to be a totally non-credible
story which is going to expose an entire movement of researchers to
ridicule.
Again I say: Shackelford--you created this situation yourself. But again
I say: if this whole thing comes crashing down around you, its not because
you had a bad public relations strategy: it will be because the
evidence--- and by that I mean credible evidence--just isn't there.
DSL
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
Dave
Barb Junkkarinen
Wow, David the Prophet. Who knew? Matt too. And Martin already
entrenched in the same role, the same stance, we've seen him in for
the last 8 years.
Barb :-)
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2008 00:49:09 -0400, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Wow, David the Prophet. Who knew? Matt too. And Martin already
> entrenched in the same role, the same stance, we've seen him in for
> the last 8 years.
>
> Barb :-)
In order to keep this series from being several thousand installments
long, I have to omit hundreds of newsgroup exhanges consisting of
people asking Martin to elaborate on his posts re: Judyth and Martin
explicitly refusing to do so and attacking the people asking the
questions.
I also omit the contentious but generally content-free exchanges
between Judyth's critics (including Lifton) and her handful of
partisans, including one "M. Bishop," whom Martin would later identify
as the Canadian researcher who fed him bogus information re: Judyth
and Adrian Alba.
Dave
jfk279x
Isn't it just a pity that all of us didn't allow Lifton to do our
thinking for us? He, of obviously only the most noble of motives,
decided he was qualified to be judge and jury on Judyth. Rather than
acknowledge that he was simply overwhelmed by Judyth (a typical first
reaction), he decided that she must fit into whatever square pegs he
had envisioned.
Thus, this email gives us more revelation into Lifton's problems with
research than it does Judyth.
Steve Thomas
> On Jun 28, 2:43�am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On 28 Jun 2008 00:49:09 -0400, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Wow, David the Prophet. Who knew? Matt too. And Martin already
> > entrenched in the same role, the same stance, we've seen him in for
> > the last 8 years.
>
> > Barb :-)
>
> In order to keep this series from being several thousand installments
> long, I have to omit hundreds of newsgroup exhanges consisting of
> people asking Martin to elaborate on his posts re: Judyth and Martin
> explicitly refusing to do so and attacking the people asking the
> questions.
>
> I also omit the contentious but generally content-free exchanges
> between Judyth's critics (including Lifton) and her handful of
> partisans, including one "M. Bishop,"
Im still curious about this Bishop and his "investigation."
Dave Reitzes
[...]
It's hard to resist making a few comments.
> <QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Me, Baker and Lifton
> Date: 26 Oct 2000 06:17:00 GMT
> From: mshack <msh...@concentric.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
>
> To summarize:
>
> Lifton concedes the conversation wasn't two hours, but closer to the 90
> minutes Judyth described. Lifton concedes she didn't talk with Oswald the
> morning of the assassination, but two days earlier, as Judyth has
> described.
>
> Lifton insists that his posts cantained "no fabrications." Apparently he's
> just careless as hell--on times, on dates.
It seems fair to note at this point that Martin says Judyth's book
contains a completely erroneous account of her "conscription" into the
service of the CIA. He says the time, date, place, and all presented
details of her account are simply "erroneous," and has expressed
bewilderment at how these errors crept into her book, which he himself
helped edit.
He has refused all of my recent requests that he elaborate, and has
refused to present any evidence in support of his version of events.
The "Deadly Alliance" outlines authored by Judyth and Dr. Howard
Platzman contain an account that impeaches both Judyth's and Martin's
version of events. (Platzman has refused comment about this, except a
statement distancing himself from any material contained in the
published book.)
I'll repost relevant details upon request.
Martin and Judyth also disagree about the date of one of the most
recent elements of her story -- the date she first viewed Oliver
Stone's movie JFK, which she says prompted her to come forward with
her story. Judyth has stated several times that was in late December
1998 (although she once said it was on November 22, 1998), while
Martin says it was in late December 1997.
Repost upon request.
Then there was the recent fiasco with Martin claiming bizarre things
about the origin of an e-mail message from Mary Ferrell, a conspiracy
surrounding Ferrell, and certain communications relevant to the events
in question.
I guess Martin would have to (rather charitably) conclude that Team
Judyth is "just careless as hell--on times, on dates" -- on pretty
much everything.
Of course, that can happen when you're just making things up as you go
along.
Dave
> His mistakes are "innocuous." His interpretations of what she said, if
> they contain any apparent errors, are "evidence of fraud."
>
> He admits that he spent "little time analyzing" her account. He admits
> that he makes errors when he relies "on memory alone." And six months
> after a conversation, he wants us to believe his version of it is more
> accurate than descriptions given by Judyth the same day or the next.
>
> He says he has "a nearly verbatim record." What does this mean? Notes,
> shorthand, a tape recording of the call? And if anything other than the
> latter, how do we note his notes are accurate or reliable.
How do we know that anything Judyth or Martin has ever said is
accurate or reliable? Because they say so? They can't even agree on
key parts of the story.
> He keeps promising more "in the future," and asks us to rely on his
> unsupported opinion in the meantime. Why should we?
Martin wrote these words in 2000.
Irony alert.
Dave
> He offers what he considers "proofs" that Judyth got her account from
> other sources, overlooking in his ignorance the fact that she had written
> out her account before she knew about those sources. She was totally
> unfamiliar with the literature when this all started. WELL after her
> account was written out, she began to look at some of the sources David
> mentioned. They were NOT sources for her account. They did in some cases
> confirm aspects of it. She learned of the Weberman website only early this
> year.
>
> The "CD-ROM" mentioned by Lifton is the Mary Ferrell database. If she has
> it at all, she only acquired it recently. This is another source she
> wasn't aware of until well after she had written out her account.
>
> It's no surprise that any library has books on the subject. The surprise
> is that Lifton feels that's sufficient evidence to prove that:
>
> 1) She read them.
> 2) She concocted her account from them.
>
> Lifton has managed to gather many bits of data. He has no idea what
> sequence they go in, however, and his chronology is totally fucked up. As
> a result, his conclusions are completely unreliable.
>
> That methodology might explain why he and Jim Fetzer agree on so much.
>
> Martin
>
> <QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
>
> <QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Me, Baker and Lifton
> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 07:38:34 -0400
> From: David Lifton <DLif...@compuserve.com>
> <E0A6346223B9A4CE.839F7E7FF9B8440C.5206295FC53FD...@lp.airnews.net>,
> wpar...@kendaco.telebyte.net says...
>
> > Or is the only "appropriate forum" one that results in a
> > financial return?
> > Just Wonderin'
> > Bill Parker
>
> Mrs. Baker's former agent demanded confidentiality agreements because he
> invested funds which he wished to recoup through an exclusive book
> contract. I believe that Mrs. Baker is now in the process of
> renegotiating those agreements, but the remain binding on those who
> signed.
>
> JR
>
> <QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
>
> <QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Me, Baker and Lifton
> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:37:34 -0500
> From: The Great Unwashed <gu@new_times.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
>
> In article <8t7c9n$rg...@nnrp1.deja.com>, joezir...@my-deja.com
> In article <39f6792d.11398...@news.earthlink.net>,
> debhart94...@yahoo.com
> From: altasre...@aol.com (Altasrecrd)
> From: dlif...@my-deja.com
Dave Reitzes
> On Jun 29, 10:23 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 28, 2:43�am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 28 Jun 2008 00:49:09 -0400, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Wow, David the Prophet. Who knew? Matt too. And Martin already
> > > entrenched in the same role, the same stance, we've seen him in for
> > > the last 8 years.
>
> > > Barb :-)
>
> > In order to keep this series from being several thousand installments
> > long, I have to omit hundreds of newsgroup exhanges consisting of
> > people asking Martin to elaborate on his posts re: Judyth and Martin
> > explicitly refusing to do so and attacking the people asking the
> > questions.
>
> > I also omit the contentious but generally content-free exchanges
> > between Judyth's critics (including Lifton) and her handful of
> > partisans, including one "M. Bishop,"
>
> Im still curious about this Bishop and his "investigation."
A fellow named Jaap would like to know why people post at the
newsgroups under false names.
Sometimes it's simply to avoid accountability, I guess.
Dave Reitzes
I use the word "identify" rather loosely, of course, as Martin has never
disclosed "Bishop's" real name. In fact, Martin has never stated whether
even he knows Bishops real name. Martin's standards, of course, have never
been very high.
One unnamed researcher informed Martin that he had evidence linking Oswald
to "the conspirators," and Martin took that as corroboration of Judyth's
story. It never seems to have occurred to Martin that if anyone had any
actual evidence linking Oswald to a conspiracy, there would be little need
for a "witness" like Judyth in the first place.
Dave
Martin Shackelford
Judyth only remains a topic because I keep posting--and the lie has been
given by their own proliferation of posts.
Martin
"jfk279x" <jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:63d68c9a-2a7a-453b...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 29, 10:23 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2:43?am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>The past two and a half weeks have given the lie to those who claim that
>Judyth only remains a topic because I keep posting--and the lie has been
>given by their own proliferation of posts.
>
>Martin
There have hardly been any Judyth posts the last couple of weeks,
comparartively speaking. And many of the posts that did appear in the
the threads were responses to Pam's many posts ... and nonsense.
jfk279x
wrote:
> The past two and a half weeks have given the lie to those who claim that
> Judyth only remains a topic because I keep posting--and the lie has been
> given by their own proliferation of posts.
>
> Martin
They seem to be in such a state of delusion -- they post obsessively about
Judyth, initiating hundreds of threads, and then claim that it is you who
is doing so. Such irony.
>
> "jfk279x" <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Jun 30, 11:56 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>> The past two and a half weeks have given the lie to those who claim that
>> Judyth only remains a topic because I keep posting--and the lie has been
>> given by their own proliferation of posts.
>>
>> Martin
>
>They seem to be in such a state of delusion -- they post obsessively about
>Judyth, initiating hundreds of threads, and then claim that it is you who
>is doing so. Such irony.
Maybe someone should start doing an accounting of the percentage of
Judyth posts that are your incessant chirps sans content ... or
responses to them. The pot calling the kettle black seems to be your
specialty. ROTFL.
jfk279x
information in order to push gossip. Sssshhhhhh.....
Barb Junkkarinen
carp at or about me as well.
Whose got the "hubris" ... I think it's clear.
jfk279x
Talk about being in denial.
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> The past two and a half weeks have given the lie to those who claim that
> Judyth only remains a topic because I keep posting--and the lie has been
> given by their own proliferation of posts.
>
> Martin
Well, it was a pleasant respite having you gone, Shackelford. And I think
the volume of Judyth posts fell off during your hiatus and almost
certainly would have continued to decline if ego hadn’t brought you
back. I don’t think you understand that a lot of people, including me,
feel very cranky having had their honesty questioned by you on a regular
basis when it turned out you were promoting (in thousands and thousands of
posts) the biggest fraud in NG history. It’s all over now, of course.
Judyth’s book (which sold only about 17 copies) is out print and Judyth
is out of the country. You’ve got nothing to sell anymore. So if you
want to take another vacation, fell free.
JGL
Barb Junkkarinen
jfk279x
You really need to have a talk with Barb. Haven't you noticed she's
started yet another Judyth thread? You might want to chat with Reitzes
too.
Steve Thomas
> Translation: nobody is supposed to point out Barb's overlooking actual
> information in order to push gossip. Sssshhhhhh.....
Well not according to Howard Platzman who said in reference to Barbs
research "i wish we had someone like you 9 years ago"
Steve Thomas
> Why not do an accounting of the number of threads initiated by Barb?
> Talk about being in denial.
Well if you listen to Howard Platzman's take on all the factual/
documented information Barb has been comming up with, you would know that
as someone who worked with Judyth personally on her book (unlike you Pam),
he seems to think Barb is doing an excellent job. He actually said "i wish
we had someone like you 9 years ago."
Steve Thomas
> On Jun 30, 12:56 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > The past two and a half weeks have given the lie to those who claim that
> > Judyth only remains a topic because I keep posting--and the lie has been
> > given by their own proliferation of posts.
>
> > Martin
>
> Well, it was a pleasant respite having you gone, Shackelford. And I think
> the volume of Judyth posts fell off during your hiatus and almost
> certainly would have continued to decline if ego hadn’t brought you
> back. I don’t think you understand that a lot of people, including me,
> feel very cranky having had their honesty questioned by you on a regular
> basis when it turned out you were promoting (in thousands and thousands of
> posts) the biggest fraud in NG history.
Not only that but he hid info on the MF email/doc and got busted.
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> #4 ...
But who's counting?
Dave \:^)
Dave Reitzes
> Translation: nobody is supposed to point out Barb's overlooking actual
> information in order to push gossip. Sssshhhhhh.....
It sounds like some sneaky child is posting the same message over and
over from Pamela's computer.
Where's Jim Marrs when you need him?
Dave
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Jun 30, 11:46?pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> #4 ...
>
>
>But who's counting?
>
>Dave \:^)
It would be a dang sight easier to count the ones that have actual
content and promote discussion of the topic, to be sure. :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
This from the woman who started a nothing but attack Judyth thread
bearing Lifton's name just a coup[le of days ago.
ROTFL
"If Judyth's detractors would focus on the facts and documentation
rather than the Lifton-initiated myth there wouldn't be much for us to
do at all." 2-27-08, so spateth Pamela McElwain-Brown
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dcbi64tqi678giuad...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
isn't really the issue. It's the content that matters. All but three
hear have been trying to discuss the issues and address the claims
.... but end up dealing with the chirps, dodges & diverts , airy
dismissals and insulting retorts of three who, two of which, seemingly
will go to any lengths to knock fruitful discussion off track . That
makes for unnecessary numbers of posts and is a waste of everybosy's
time besides. Well, almost a waste ... those posts are quite telling.
Are you going to address the questions Paul has asked you about the
e-mail you know Judyth sent Mary in March 2002 .... a month before the
"visit" with the tape recdorder now, or do you have another trip
coming up?
On 1 Jul 2008 10:48:25 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
Martin Shackelford
your "facts."
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9da3a2f3-c9fc-4bde...@g16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
misleading posts in a row--typical.
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:247112b6-69bd-466d...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
William Yates
> Why not do an accounting of the number of threads initiated by Barb?
> Talk about being in denial.
>
About Judyth, from memory
1 High School
2 Roswell Park
3 Green Glass
4 Russian Class
5 "Indiana Biological Association"
6 Medec Zoa
7 1960 Science Fair
8 NSF Grants
All of which provided more actual information than your posts have.
JLeyd...@aol.com
> You really need to have a talk with Barb. Haven't you noticed she's
> started yet another Judyth thread? You might want to chat with Reitzes too.
Oh we get together for coffee all the time (Starbucks) to plan our
anti-Judyth strategy. As I said in my post some of us are pretty ticked
off at having been insulted/maligned by people who promoted what has
turned out to be the biggest fraud in NG history. I mean these are people
who couldn't tell that a woman who wants to be buried next to Lee Harvey
Oswald (Thanks, Jaap, for the info) must be completely delusional.
JGL
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Jul 1, 12:51 am, jfk279x <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You really need to have a talk with Barb. Haven't you noticed she's
>> started yet another Judyth thread? You might want to chat with Reitzes too.
>
>Oh we get together for coffee all the time (Starbucks) to plan our
>anti-Judyth strategy.
Love those mocha frapaccinos. <g>
> As I said in my post some of us are pretty ticked
>off at having been insulted/maligned by people who promoted what has
>turned out to be the biggest fraud in NG history. I mean these are people
>who couldn't tell that a woman who wants to be buried next to Lee Harvey
>Oswald (Thanks, Jaap, for the info) must be completely delusional.
Interesting comment ... sounds a bit like one I got in e-mail from a
lurker a couple weeks ago. I told him I would quote him some day. He
said:
" Someone was asking why we're still on the case. I think my answer
would be: because on this particular issue, Team Judyth
(Judyth, Martin, Howard, Pam, Tony) exemplify, on this particular
issue, the worst features of the JFK assassination 'research
community.' Which pisses us off."
Sums it up pretty well, me thinks.
Barb :-)
>
>JGL
Steve Thomas
wrote:
> Taking a quote out of context and then making it the centerpiece of three
> misleading posts in a row--typical.
What was out of context about it? Was he not saying Barb was doing
a good job finding things?
>
> Martin
>
> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
Steve Thomas
wrote:
They actually provided more information than Judyth's book, and at
very least more accurate.
jfk279x
wrote:
You are missing the point. Barb is refusing to acknowledge that she, not
I, has initiated a flood of posts on Judyth and then walked past actual
information in order to push gossip. Maybe you're too wrapped up in the
gossip to notice.
Anthony Marsh
> No, you need to take another look, Martin. But the number of posts
> isn't really the issue. It's the content that matters. All but three
> hear have been trying to discuss the issues and address the claims
All but three here [sic] make up strawman arguments, deny simple facts,
and make up false versions of Judyth's story.
> .... but end up dealing with the chirps, dodges & diverts , airy
> dismissals and insulting retorts of three who, two of which, seemingly
> will go to any lengths to knock fruitful discussion off track . That
> makes for unnecessary numbers of posts and is a waste of everybosy's
> time besides. Well, almost a waste ... those posts are quite telling.
>
There would be no Judyth posts here [sic] at all if you didn't keep
bringing it up.
Barb Junkkarinen
On 1 Jul 2008 20:20:14 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Anthony Marsh
Was Judyth in the US when the book was published? If not, then what the
Hell is your point about her being out of the country now? What is your
source for the claim that only about 17 copies of the book were sold? As
far as being out of print that seems inapplicable if the book is a Print
On Demand?
Barb Junkkarinen
Good heavens, Pamela, get a grip. Though it may be news to you, this
is not third grade. Of course you missed the context of what I said
and now apparently are going to stomp your big feet all over the
newsgroup whiningg, "She did it, not me."
You are responsible for a great number of posts (and threads!) that
have no meaningful content. Their only purpose seems to be to chirp,
nag, insult, accuse and otherwise dodge & divert discussion from the
Judyth posts started with actual issues raised and information posted.
I have no problem acknowledging the threads I have started. Your
penchant for posting responses like sodium hitting water with nothing
more than my name (or someone else's) followed by an insult or an
accusation or a whine are what accounts for tons of posts ... your
nonsense and people's replies to your nonsense, most have given up
trying to get an actual reply with information out of you.
Quit stomping your feet long enough to look around .... since you and
Martin came back yesterday and started back with your one liners and
insults, the number of posts in the Judyth threads are probably at
least 3 or 4 times what they were on any day when you were both
elsewhere.
Save it for the whine and geez bar.
Barb :-)
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> I didn't "hide" anything. Try not letting your imagination be the source of
> your "facts."
>
> Martin
Let's see -- right off the top of my head -- remember when Judyth wrote an
e-mail to Salon and claimed it was her daughter but used her own email
tag? Not too smart but you supported her all the way, saying Judyth was
free and easy with her email address and password. Must have been because
remember when Judyth posted to the NG claiming to be an old friend from
Houston who had seen J's evidence and knew she was the real deal. Altho
the "old friend" hadn't seen Judyth in 12 years she, too, used J's email
tag. Slow learner. And, of course, you supported her right down the
line. Then there was that whole Cancun fiasco. How many different
stories did you make up to try to explain that one away? And all the time
we were the ones accused of telling "falsehoods," misrepresenting the
facts, etc. And what was your reward in the end for your slavish service?
Judyth turned on you and accused you of sneaking around behind her back.
Those are fighting words for most people but not for you apparently.
JGL
Barb Junkkarinen
google shows 11 posts from Pamela. Here is their TOTAL content:
"They seem to be in such a state of delusion -- they post obsessively
about Judyth, initiating hundreds of threads, and then claim that it
is you who is doing so. Such irony."
*******************************
"You are quite mistaken, Martin. You have to produce documentation of
your whereabouts during that time and proof that you did not have
access to the internet, or else you will be greeted with even more
claims that you are running away. Surely you know that by now. :-0
And BTW you're sure to catch some heat for all the threads on Judyth
initiated by Barb and Reitzes during your absense. They are your
fault too!"
*********************************
"Why not do an accounting of the number of threads initiated by Barb?
Talk about being in denial."
********************************
"After trying to pin responsibility for the current flood of posts on
Judyth on others, Barb picks up the gauntlet once again to pass up
discussion of information on this letter and instead attempt to float
some sort of gossip that she seems to thinks will be detrimental to
Judyth.
Someone needs help with delusion here."
*********************************
"You are missing the point. Barb is refusing to acknowledge that she,
not I, has initiated a flood of posts on Judyth and then walked past
actual information in order to push gossip. Maybe you're too wrapped
up in the gossip to notice"
*********************************
"Isn't it just a pity that all of us didn't allow Lifton to do our
thinking for us? He, of obviously only the most noble of motives,
decided he was qualified to be judge and jury on Judyth. Rather than
acknowledge that he was simply overwhelmed by Judyth (a typical first
reaction), he decided that she must fit into whatever square pegs he
had envisioned.
Thus, this email gives us more revelation into Lifton's problems with
research than it does Judyth." [in the thread she started about
Lifton's "Hubris"]
*********************************
"Try to keep up, Dave. Barb is trying to pin the blame for the flood
of posts on Judyth she initiated on me. My issue is not only that she
does that, but then overlooks actual information in her posts in order
to pick out a piece of gossip she thinks will be detrimental to
Judyth." [she was actually replying to a post by Steve]
*************************************
"Face it, Martin. He just can't handle the truth."
***********************************
"If you try to pin the blame for your flood of posts on Judyth on me,
you can expect a similar response."
**************************************
"I would not do anything to encourage Judyth to post here. I've
already said that."
****************************************
"Nevertheless, Ruth Paine sits in the center of an historical event.
It is entirely appropriate to ask what her involvement, if any, was,
and what her intent was as well. Is she as well-meaning as she
claims, or is her involvement more complex?" [an actual post, off
judyth, and with some content!]
7 mention my name or refer to/about me.
And she says others are "obsessed."
And who has got the "hubris"?
Of course, we make it worse by replying to such nonsense ... mea
culpa.
On 1 Jul 2008 20:02:27 -0400, Steve Thomas <misled...@aol.com>
wrote:
Steve Thomas
wrote:
> I didn't "hide" anything.
Sure you did.
Try not letting your imagination be the source of
> your "facts."
>
> Martin
>
> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > JGL- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dave Reitzes
I couldn't argue with that.
Dave
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4ed5c2bd-ad25-4c88...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
vivid imagination.
The book, however, ceased being available last October.
Judyth being out of the country was unrelated to the book.
Martin
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6bqdnXvhN5MFEPfV...@comcast.com...
Martin Shackelford
It was written neither by Judyth nor by her daughter, but by a visiting
friend,
as the e-mail itself stated. The friend later confirmed this to me, so I
wasn't
"relying on Judyth" as the Greek chorus here will likely be singing out.
You are the last person who should be pointing at me for inaccuracy.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b99e5562-8b10-44ff...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
You seem to be referring to the fact that, as a result of my move to a new
apartment, some files have been inaccessible for a while--not
intentionally "hidden."
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:609ee50a-325b-430e...@i18g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Steve Thomas
> He was praising ONE post, Steve.
Thats funny cause on April 30 at 5:15 am Howard Platzman had this to
say "Keep on researching. The way
things are going for you, pretty soon you will discover that she was
the first woman president of the United States. (- : "
Sounds like a ringing endorsment. This and the other quote were
during Barbs flurry of posts on the NSF, Grants, Green Glass, the
Russian class, Roswell Park. Give it up Shack, Barb checked more
things in a few months than you did in 9 years.
>
> Martin
>
> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4ed5c2bd-ad25-4c88...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 1, 11:31 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Taking a quote out of context and then making it the centerpiece of three
> > misleading posts in a row--typical.
>
> What was out of context about it? Was he not saying Barb was doing
> a good job finding things?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Martin
>
> > "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:247112b6-69bd-466d...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 1, 9:51 am, jfk279x <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why not do an accounting of the number of threads initiated by Barb?
> > > Talk about being in denial.
>
> > Well if you listen to Howard Platzman's take on all the factual/
> > documented information Barb has been comming up with, you would know that
> > as someone who worked with Judyth personally on her book (unlike you Pam),
> > he seems to think Barb is doing an excellent job. He actually said "i wish
> > we had someone like you 9 years ago."- Hide quoted text -
jfk279x
> On Jul 1, 11:31 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Taking a quote out of context and then making it the centerpiece of three
> > misleading posts in a row--typical.
>
> What was out of context about it? Was he not saying Barb was doing
> a good job finding things?
>
>
>
> > Martin
>
> > "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:247112b6-69bd-466d...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 1, 9:51 am, jfk279x <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why not do an accounting of the number of threads initiated by Barb?
> > > Talk about being in denial.
>
> > Well if you listen to Howard Platzman's take on all the factual/
> > documented information Barb has been comming up with, you would know that
> > as someone who worked with Judyth personally on her book (unlike you Pam),
> > he seems to think Barb is doing an excellent job. He actually said "i wish
> > we had someone like you 9 years ago."
Try reading critically and you may see the irony. Barb is turning up
valuable information only to pick out any tiny thing she can find that
can be turned into gossip. When someone points that out, she blames
them for doing so.
Barb Junkkarinen
has supplied even one.
Let's all feign surprise.
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 1, 12:30 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> I didn't "hide" anything. Try not letting your imagination be the source of
>> your "facts."
>>
>> Martin
>
> Let's see -- right off the top of my head -- remember when Judyth wrote an
> e-mail to Salon and claimed it was her daughter but used her own email
> tag? Not too smart but you supported her all the way, saying Judyth was
> free and easy with her email address and password. Must have been because
> remember when Judyth posted to the NG claiming to be an old friend from
> Houston who had seen J's evidence and knew she was the real deal. Altho
> the "old friend" hadn't seen Judyth in 12 years she, too, used J's email
> tag. Slow learner. And, of course, you supported her right down the
> line. Then there was that whole Cancun fiasco. How many different
Do you mean the Cancun fiasco that was started by McAdams posting a false
version of Judyth's book? Or the Cancun fiasco that was started by Barb
claiming that Cancun did not exist until 1972 and that no people lived
there and it was on a jungle?
paul seaton
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7BFak.20559$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Restating a false claim doesn't make it accurate.
> You seem to be referring to the fact that, as a result of my move to a new
> apartment, some files have been inaccessible for a while--not
> intentionally "hidden."
You are saying you admit you were wrong to claim Mary F didn't know the
contents of 'judyth.doc' until Judyth read it to her ? ( Whatever can have
given you that idea?)
And your excuse is that you didn't have access to the email you received
weeks prior to that event that informed you otherwise ? You are really
saying you didn't REMEMBER the damn email from Judyth you were cc'd on ,
Martin??
Or is it all so vague to you you can just make stuff up out of thin air &
even BELIEVE IT YOURSELF??
If you want to be taken seriously, you will have to have the courage to
FACE FACTS Martin, otherwise you are going to remain a bit of a joke
around here.
paul seaton
> Never rely on the top of your head, Leyden.
> It was written neither by Judyth nor by her daughter, but by a visiting
> friend,
> as the e-mail itself stated. The friend later confirmed this to me,
With your record , you don't expect anyone to believe this do you ?
so I
> wasn't
> "relying on Judyth" as the Greek chorus here will likely be singing out.
> You are the last person who should be pointing at me for inaccuracy.
There are a lot of people pointing at you for inaccuracy.
JLeyd...@aol.com
> Never rely on the top of your head, Leyden.
> It was written neither by Judyth nor by her daughter, but by a visiting
> friend,
> as the e-mail itself stated. The friend later confirmed this to me, so I
> wasn't
> "relying on Judyth" as the Greek chorus here will likely be singing out.
> You are the last person who should be pointing at me for inaccuracy.
>
> Martin
Good Lord, Shackelford, you're still covering for this woman after she
accused you sneaking around behind her back and sabotaging her book. If
someone had said about to me I would have run 'em over with my power lawn
mower. But rereading the Salon thing, it's obvious Judyth was the writer.
Their aren't two people in the world that write in what Amy Reiter of
Salon called that "breathless, addle-brained style." Your problem is you
let this woman buffalo you from the get- go and we've all had to pay the
price. Now you're apparently back for another round but, as I said
before, you've got nothing to sell anymore. Amazon.com lists her book as
"out of print" and, of course, we know she's out of the country sponging
off a whole new crowd. The project is dead and you've got to take your
losses.
JGL
JLeyd...@aol.com
> Of course, the figure of 17 books was invented by Leyden out of his
> vivid imagination.
> The book, however, ceased being available last October.
> Judyth being out of the country was unrelated to the book.
>
> Martin
Still covering for her altho we all know you're really just trying to save
yourself., Shackelford (Too late for that.) Judyth fled the country, we
were told by Pam, to seek provisional asylum abroad. Apparently, she
thought assassins were after her because of her blockbuster book (now "out
of print"). Of course, she's been running from assassins for years but
you,a trained social worker, couldn't pick up on it.
JGL
Dave Reitzes
> On Jul 1, 12:30�pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I didn't "hide" anything. Try not letting your imagination be the source of
> > your "facts."
>
> > Martin
>
> Let's see -- right off the top of my head -- remember when Judyth wrote an
> e-mail to Salon and claimed it was her daughter but used her own email
It was supposedly a friend named Sherry. See:
The initial claim was that Sherry wrote and sent the messages on Judyth's
computer. When it was asked why Sherry specifically signed some of these
messages as "Elect Lady" (Judyth's Internet nom de plume at the time), it
was subsequently claimed that Judyth CREATED the messages, but Sherry
ALTERED and POSTED the messages.
Any of this sound familiar?
Dave
Steve Thomas
> On Jul 1, 7:01 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 11:31 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Taking a quote out of context and then making it the centerpiece of three
> > > misleading posts in a row--typical.
>
> > What was out of context about it? Was he not saying Barb was doing
> > a good job finding things?
>
> > > Martin
>
> > > "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:247112b6-69bd-466d...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Jul 1, 9:51 am, jfk279x <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why not do an accounting of the number of threads initiated by Barb?
> > > > Talk about being in denial.
>
> > > Well if you listen to Howard Platzman's take on all the factual/
> > > documented information Barb has been comming up with, you would know that
> > > as someone who worked with Judyth personally on her book (unlike you Pam),
> > > he seems to think Barb is doing an excellent job. He actually said "i wish
> > > we had someone like you 9 years ago."
>
> Try reading critically
I have been, thats how i know Martin is full of it and Judyth is a
liar, you should try it sometime.
and you may see the irony. Barb is turning up
> valuable information
Glad you finally admit that.
only to pick out any tiny thing she can find that
> can be turned into gossip.
but you just said it was "information" which the would counteract
the "gossip" claim, or dont you see the ironly lol
When someone points that out, she blames
> them for doing so.-
Nope, its not "gossip" unless your a Judyth supporter. Can you
specifically cite 3 instances where Barb has started/spread a rumor? We
blame you for not putting forth any new stuff regarding Judyth that can be
documented. Barb on the other hand is miles ahead of you in that
department.
Dave Reitzes
> On Jul 1, 7:01 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 11:31 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Taking a quote out of context and then making it the centerpiece of three
> > > misleading posts in a row--typical.
>
> > � �What was out of context about it? Was he not saying Barb was doing
> > a good job finding things?
>
> > > Martin
>
> > > "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:247112b6-69bd-466d...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Jul 1, 9:51 am, jfk279x <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why not do an accounting of the number of threads initiated by Barb?
> > > > Talk about being in denial.
>
> > > Well if you listen to Howard Platzman's take on all the factual/
> > > documented information Barb has been comming up with, you would know that
> > > as someone who worked with Judyth personally on her book (unlike you Pam),
> > > he seems to think Barb is doing an excellent job. He actually said "i wish
> > > we had someone like you 9 years ago."
>
> Try reading critically and you may see the irony. �Barb is turning up
> valuable information
Barb, this is where you say, "You're welcome." \:^)
only to pick out any tiny thing she can find that
> can be turned into gossip. �When someone points that out, she blames
> them for doing so.
Judyth's followers have such vivid imaginations. It's kind of a
prerequisite.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
> Pamela has been asked for examples before, more than once. She never
> has supplied even one.
>
> Let's all feign surprise.
>
> Barb :-)
You mean like the time she declared my website to be "disinformation,"
but couldn't point out a single inaccuracy there?
Yes, she's full of, er, surprises.
> On 2 Jul 2008 15:39:26 -0400, jfk279x <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jul 1, 7:01 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 1, 11:31 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > Taking a quote out of context and then making it the centerpiece of three
> >> > misleading posts in a row--typical.
>
> >> � �What was out of context about it? Was he not saying Barb was doing
> >> a good job finding things?
>
> >> > Martin
>
> >> > "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >news:247112b6-69bd-466d...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Jul 1, 9:51 am, jfk279x <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Why not do an accounting of the number of threads initiated by Barb?
> >> > > Talk about being in denial.
>
> >> > Well if you listen to Howard Platzman's take on all the factual/
> >> > documented information Barb has been comming up with, you would know that
> >> > as someone who worked with Judyth personally on her book (unlike you Pam),
> >> > he seems to think Barb is doing an excellent job. He actually said "i wish
> >> > we had someone like you 9 years ago."
>
> >Try reading critically and you may see the irony. �Barb is turning up
> >valuable information only to pick out any tiny thing she can find that
> >can be turned into gossip. �When someone points that out, she blames
> >them for doing so.
Dave
jfk279x
wrote:
> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:7BFak.20559$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> > Restating a false claim doesn't make it accurate.
> > You seem to be referring to the fact that, as a result of my move to a new
> > apartment, some files have been inaccessible for a while--not
> > intentionally "hidden."
>
> You are saying you admit you were wrong to claim Mary F didn't know the
> contents of 'judyth.doc' until Judyth read it to her ? ( Whatever can have
> given you that idea?)
>
> And your excuse is that you didn't have access to the email you received
> weeks prior to that event that informed you otherwise ? You are really
> saying you didn't REMEMBER the damn email from Judyth you were cc'd on ,
> Martin??
>
> Or is it all so vague to you you can just make stuff up out of thin air &
> even BELIEVE IT YOURSELF??
>
> If you want to be taken seriously, you will have to have the courage to
> FACE FACTS Martin, otherwise you are going to remain a bit of a joke
> around here.
>
>
>
> > Martin
>
How nice to have you acting as judge and jury on whatever Martin does.
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Jul 2, 3:39?pm, jfk279x <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 7:01 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 1, 11:31 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > Taking a quote out of context and then making it the centerpiece of three
>> > > misleading posts in a row--typical.
>>
>> > ? ?What was out of context about it? Was he not saying Barb was doing
>> > a good job finding things?
>>
>> > > Martin
>>
>> > > "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:247112b6-69bd-466d...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> > > On Jul 1, 9:51 am, jfk279x <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Why not do an accounting of the number of threads initiated by Barb?
>> > > > Talk about being in denial.
>>
>> > > Well if you listen to Howard Platzman's take on all the factual/
>> > > documented information Barb has been comming up with, you would know that
>> > > as someone who worked with Judyth personally on her book (unlike you Pam),
>> > > he seems to think Barb is doing an excellent job. He actually said "i wish
>> > > we had someone like you 9 years ago."
>>
>> Try reading critically and you may see the irony. ?Barb is turning up
>> valuable information
>
>
>Barb, this is where you say, "You're welcome." \:^)
You're welcome. :-)
>
>
>only to pick out any tiny thing she can find that
>> can be turned into gossip. ?When someone points that out, she blames
>> them for doing so.
>
>
>Judyth's followers have such vivid imaginations. It's kind of a
>prerequisite.
Ain't that the truth!
Barb :-)
>
>Dave
Steve Thomas
> JLeyden...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 12:30 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >> I didn't "hide" anything. Try not letting your imagination be the source of
> >> your "facts."
>
> >> Martin
>
> > Let's see -- right off the top of my head -- remember when Judyth wrote an
> > e-mail to Salon and claimed it was her daughter but used her own email
> > tag? Not too smart but you supported her all the way, saying Judyth was
> > free and easy with her email address and password. Must have been because
> > remember when Judyth posted to the NG claiming to be an old friend from
> > Houston who had seen J's evidence and knew she was the real deal. Altho
> > the "old friend" hadn't seen Judyth in 12 years she, too, used J's email
> > tag. Slow learner. And, of course, you supported her right down the
> > line. Then there was that whole Cancun fiasco. How many different
>
> Do you mean the Cancun fiasco that was started by McAdams posting a false
> version of Judyth's book? Or the Cancun fiasco that was started by Barb
> claiming that Cancun did not exist until 1972 and that no people lived
> there and it was on a jungle?
Or when Tony Marsh said there were no fine hotels in Mexico in 1963.
>
>
>
> > stories did you make up to try to explain that one away? And all the time
> > we were the ones accused of telling "falsehoods," misrepresenting the
> > facts, etc. And what was your reward in the end for your slavish service?
> > Judyth turned on you and accused you of sneaking around behind her back.
> > Those are fighting words for most people but not for you apparently.
>
Martin Shackelford
Gee, I wonder why one from several years ago doesn't come
immediately to mind.
Martin
"paul seaton" <paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:486b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Martin Shackelford
She didn't flee THIS country and seek asylum, she fled HUNGARY to seek
asylum.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b5578cfd-2331-4205...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
was to ignore them and again claim none were cited.
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a4e30cb8-0f25-473b...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 2, 4:54?pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Pamela has been asked for examples before, more than once. She never
> has supplied even one.
>
> Let's all feign surprise.
>
> Barb :-)
You mean like the time she declared my website to be "disinformation,"
but couldn't point out a single inaccuracy there?
Yes, she's full of, er, surprises.
> On 2 Jul 2008 15:39:26 -0400, jfk279x <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jul 1, 7:01 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 1, 11:31 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > Taking a quote out of context and then making it the centerpiece of
> >> > three
> >> > misleading posts in a row--typical.
>
> >> ? ?What was out of context about it? Was he not saying Barb was doing
> >> a good job finding things?
>
> >> > Martin
>
> >> > "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >news:247112b6-69bd-466d...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Jul 1, 9:51 am, jfk279x <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Why not do an accounting of the number of threads initiated by
> >> > > Barb?
> >> > > Talk about being in denial.
>
> >> > Well if you listen to Howard Platzman's take on all the factual/
> >> > documented information Barb has been comming up with, you would know
> >> > that
> >> > as someone who worked with Judyth personally on her book (unlike you
> >> > Pam),
> >> > he seems to think Barb is doing an excellent job. He actually said "i
> >> > wish
> >> > we had someone like you 9 years ago."
>
> >Try reading critically and you may see the irony. ?Barb is turning up
> >valuable information only to pick out any tiny thing she can find that
> >can be turned into gossip. ?When someone points that out, she blames
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 3, 9:51 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> JLeyden...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Jul 1, 12:30 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I didn't "hide" anything. Try not letting your imagination be the source of
>>>> your "facts."
>>>> Martin
>>> Let's see -- right off the top of my head -- remember when Judyth wrote an
>>> e-mail to Salon and claimed it was her daughter but used her own email
>>> tag? Not too smart but you supported her all the way, saying Judyth was
>>> free and easy with her email address and password. Must have been because
>>> remember when Judyth posted to the NG claiming to be an old friend from
>>> Houston who had seen J's evidence and knew she was the real deal. Altho
>>> the "old friend" hadn't seen Judyth in 12 years she, too, used J's email
>>> tag. Slow learner. And, of course, you supported her right down the
>>> line. Then there was that whole Cancun fiasco. How many different
>> Do you mean the Cancun fiasco that was started by McAdams posting a false
>> version of Judyth's book? Or the Cancun fiasco that was started by Barb
>> claiming that Cancun did not exist until 1972 and that no people lived
>> there and it was on a jungle?
>
>
>
> Or when Tony Marsh said there were no fine hotels in Mexico in 1963.
>
>
You are confused again. That's what Barb said, not I.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 2, 3:25 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Of course, the figure of 17 books was invented by Leyden out of his
>> vivid imagination.
>> The book, however, ceased being available last October.
>> Judyth being out of the country was unrelated to the book.
>>
>> Martin
>
> Still covering for her altho we all know you're really just trying to save
> yourself., Shackelford (Too late for that.) Judyth fled the country, we
Fled which country? Not this country. Some other country.
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I was getting up to 50 e-mails a day relating to Judyth.
>Gee, I wonder why one from several years ago doesn't come
>immediately to mind.
>
>Martin
What utter BS. You certainly didn't seem to have ANY doubt when you
declared and maintained that Mary had NO idea what was in the
attachment until it was read to her during the tape recorder raid in
April.
A quite strong, bullying and demanding letter like Judyth's e-mail a
month earlier ... despite being reminded about it explicitly ... just
slipped your mind? Yet you had definite recsll about the most minute
details of other things regarding the attachment and that whole period
of time.
Yeah, that's gonna fly real far, Martin.
Especially since your response when it was posted was not an, "Oh my
gawd, I forgot about that letter!" ... but instead a snippy response
about thanking Debra for sending the e-mail around.
You then disappeared quickly ... but hopefully not before it was made
explicitly clear that the e-mail did not come from Debra.
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>As usual, your "facts" are a mass of confusion.
>She didn't flee THIS country and seek asylum, she fled HUNGARY to seek
>asylum.
That's gota sound stupid even to you, Martin. She's an American
citizen, for pete's sake.
paul seaton
>I was getting up to 50 e-mails a day relating to Judyth.
> Gee, I wonder why one from several years ago doesn't come
> immediately to mind.
well - that email (which you got) paints a pretty vivid picture the
Ferrell - Baker relationship at that time. Judyth felt (whether genuinely
or not) betrayed by Mary, & was telling her so, in very forceful terms.
And she was blaming it all on an email Mary had sent out. An email that
accused her of just about everything short of sodomy. (slight
not-very-poetic licence, but you get the meaning).
And we must presume that Mary Ferrell read this email, since it was
primarily addressed to her.
And yet you have claimed, with all the appearance of certainty, that Mary
F was not aware of the contents of that which we call 'judyth.doc' until
Judy read it to her on Taping Day.
That - Taping Day - was the FIRST TIME (so you have said, a few times, by
memory) that she realised that something awful had happened to her
innocent & loving original email attachment . BTW - Presumably you gleaned
this from a scientific examination of that which we call 'The Tape' ?
paul seaton
> As usual, your "facts" are a mass of confusion.
> She didn't flee THIS country and seek asylum, she fled HUNGARY to seek
> asylum.
!!!!
She's seeking asylum from just about everywhere. Can't imagine why.
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Lists of inaccuracies were posted at least twice. As usual, your tactic
>was to ignore them and again claim none were cited.
I don't recall any either. If they were posted, give us a google link.
An advanced google froups search for: reitzes judyth web errors with
Pamela as author turned up two posts ... neither of them having
anything to do with this.
Where CAN we see all those errors she references listed?
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Steve Thomas wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 9:51 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> JLeyden...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> On Jul 1, 12:30 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I didn't "hide" anything. Try not letting your imagination be the source of
>>>>> your "facts."
>>>>> Martin
>>>> Let's see -- right off the top of my head -- remember when Judyth wrote an
>>>> e-mail to Salon and claimed it was her daughter but used her own email
>>>> tag? Not too smart but you supported her all the way, saying Judyth was
>>>> free and easy with her email address and password. Must have been because
>>>> remember when Judyth posted to the NG claiming to be an old friend from
>>>> Houston who had seen J's evidence and knew she was the real deal. Altho
>>>> the "old friend" hadn't seen Judyth in 12 years she, too, used J's email
>>>> tag. Slow learner. And, of course, you supported her right down the
>>>> line. Then there was that whole Cancun fiasco. How many different
>>> Do you mean the Cancun fiasco that was started by McAdams posting a false
>>> version of Judyth's book? Or the Cancun fiasco that was started by Barb
>>> claiming that Cancun did not exist until 1972 and that no people lived
>>> there and it was on a jungle?
>>
>>
>>
>> Or when Tony Marsh said there were no fine hotels in Mexico in 1963.
>>
>>
>
>You are confused again. That's what Barb said, not I.
Quote me saying there were no fine hotels in Mexico in 1963.
You can't of course, because I never said any such thing.
Time for a Tony vacation....
Dave Reitzes
> Lists of inaccuracies were posted at least twice. As usual, your tactic
> was to ignore them and again claim none were cited.
>
> Martin
You sound confused, Martin. I invited Pamela to back up her claim and her
precise response was this: "Dave refuses to acknowledge that I have
defined his anti-J page as a smear. Therefore, the entire concept of the
page is in error."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/589e7e4bb964b841?hl=en&dmode=source
As I noted at the time, Judyth gets precisely the defenders she deserves.
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
JLeyd...@aol.com
> As usual, your "facts" are a mass of confusion.
> She didn't flee THIS country and seek asylum, she fled HUNGARY to seek
> asylum.
>
> Martin
A man who actively promoted the Judyth Baker fraud has no business
questioning somone else's "facts." You put us thru eight years of Judyth
Baker nonsense because you refused to do any significant research on her
ridiculous claims such as interviewing her ex-husband and Marina Oswald.
I've got those facts right.
JGL
JLeyd...@aol.com
> On 3 Jul 2008 18:31:06 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> >As usual, your "facts" are a mass of confusion.
> >She didn't flee THIS country and seek asylum, she fled HUNGARY to seek
> >asylum.
>
> That's gota sound stupid even to you, Martin. She's an American
> citizen, for pete's sake.
No, Barb, it doesn't sound stupid to Shackelford. He believes everything
this woman told him without bothering tgo check it out. And now he's
apparently planning to subject us to a new round of Judyth nonsense.
JGL
William Yates
>
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:X13bk.12924$xZ....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> As usual, your "facts" are a mass of confusion.
>> She didn't flee THIS country and seek asylum, she fled HUNGARY to seek
>> asylum.
>
>
> !!!!
> She's seeking asylum from just about everywhere. Can't imagine why.
Maybe Martin can talk her into moving in with Tony.
Martin Shackelford
with my family for quite some time. I'm tired of your little gossip group's
innuendoes on this matter. You take no knowledge, add suspicions, and
declare your assumptions as "possibly" factual. Garbage in, garbage out.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gkrq64t90vv3io2np...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
response to a police warning, was Hungary, as has been discussed here.
She then sought asylum in Sweden. She did not flee the U.S. to Sweden.
That she is an American citizen really isn't relevant to those facts.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o4sq64p6r6frgjtec...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
There was no reason for her to repeat them, just because some yahoo on
here demands that things be repeated over and over and over or they
"don't exist."
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:q6sq649db09uclit6...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:64c0044c-ec51-4ab7...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
you want, read some of your old posts and don't forget Pam's too.
Hope you had a great trip ... family is important. But the fact of the
matter is that you managed to get in one sniping post making a crack
about Debra AFTER the e-mail was posted. Perhaps that time would have
been better spent with a reply acknowledging that you were in error
and that Mary obviously did know about what the attachment included
before the tape recorder raid in April.
You STILL haven't done that.
On 4 Jul 2008 12:46:44 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
Barb Junkkarinen
country, of course it is relevant that she is a US citizen.
On 4 Jul 2008 12:46:50 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>That's because the posts were MINE, not Pam's.
>There was no reason for her to repeat them, just because some yahoo on
>here demands that things be repeated over and over and over or they
>"don't exist."
>
>Martin
Sooo...she makes claims of inaccuracies .... refuses to list them
...so you do a Carnack and list them for her? How do you know what she
thinks the errors are since she never would post them? So much for her
highly vbalued thinking for ones self.<g>
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<william_...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>paul seaton wrote:
>>
>> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:X13bk.12924$xZ....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> As usual, your "facts" are a mass of confusion.
>>> She didn't flee THIS country and seek asylum, she fled HUNGARY to seek
>>> asylum.
>>
>>
>> !!!!
>> She's seeking asylum from just about everywhere. Can't imagine why.
>
>Maybe Martin can talk her into moving in with Tony.
I will send them a chip and dip set.<g>
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
> Baloney. As an American citizen, found to be in danger in a foreign
> country, of course it is relevant that she is a US citizen.
>
The point is that hangers-on to Team McAdams have talked about Judyth
fleeing the country, meaning the US. He is setting the record straight
that Judyth fled another country, not the US. Is that so hard for you to
understand?
William Yates
> Enough of this "disappeared" crap. I left on a trip that had been planned
> with my family for quite some time. I'm tired of your little gossip group's
> innuendoes on this matter. You take no knowledge, add suspicions, and
> declare your assumptions as "possibly" factual. Garbage in, garbage out.
>
> Martin
>
Yeah, Barb. Only Martin gets to take no knowledge, add suspicions, and
declare his assumptions as factual.
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> That's because the posts were MINE, not Pam's.
Then why change the subject? I was addressing Pamela, was I not?
> There was no reason for her to repeat them, just because some yahoo on
> here demands that things be repeated over and over and over or they
> "don't exist."
>
> Martin
If you can prove anything on my website to be inaccurate, just say so, be
specific, and cite your sources.
If you can't do that, then by all means continue to rant incoherently.
> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:q6sq649db09uclit6...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On 3 Jul 2008 18:31:33 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> > <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>Lists of inaccuracies were posted at least twice. As usual, your tactic
> >>was to ignore them and again claim none were cited.
>
> > I don't recall any either. If they were posted, give us a google link.
>
> > An advanced google froups search for: reitzes judyth web errors with
> > Pamela as author turned up two posts ... neither of them having
> > anything to do with this.
>
> > Where CAN we see all those errors she references listed?
>
> >>Martin
>
> >>"Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>news:a4e30cb8-0f25-473b...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >>On Jul 2, 4:54?pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Pamela has been asked for examples before, more than once. She never
> >>> has supplied even one.
>
> >>> Let's all feign surprise.
>
> >>> Barb :-)
>
> >>You mean like the time she declared my website to be "disinformation,"
> >>but couldn't point out a single inaccuracy there?
>
> >>Yes, she's full of, er, surprises.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
> Get over yourself, Martin. If it's gossip and innuendo about others
> you want, read some of your old posts and don't forget Pam's too.
>
> Hope you had a great trip ... family is important. But the fact of the
> matter is that you managed to get in one sniping post making a crack
> about Debra AFTER the e-mail was posted. Perhaps that time would have
> been better spent with a reply acknowledging that you were in error
> and that Mary obviously did know about what the attachment included
> before the tape recorder raid in April.
>
> You STILL haven't done that.
Oh, you noticed that too?
\:^)
> On 4 Jul 2008 12:46:44 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>
>
>
> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >Enough of this "disappeared" crap. I left on a trip that had been planned
> >with my family for quite some time. I'm tired of your little gossip group's
> >innuendoes on this matter. You take no knowledge, add suspicions, and
> >declare your assumptions as "possibly" factual. Garbage in, garbage out.
>
> >Martin
>
> >"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:gkrq64t90vv3io2np...@4ax.com...
> >> On 3 Jul 2008 18:30:31 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> >> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>>I was getting up to 50 e-mails a day relating to Judyth.
> >>>Gee, I wonder why one from several years ago doesn't come
> >>>immediately to mind.
>
> >>>Martin
>
> >> What utter BS. You certainly didn't seem to have ANY doubt when you
> >> declared and maintained that Mary had NO idea what was in the
> >> attachment until it was read to her during the tape recorder raid in
> >> April.
>
> >> A quite strong, bullying and demanding letter like Judyth's e-mail a
> >> month earlier ... despite being reminded about it explicitly ... just
> >> slipped your mind? Yet you had definite recsll about the most minute
> >> details of other things regarding the attachment and that whole period
> >> of time.
>
> >> Yeah, that's gonna fly real far, Martin.
>
> >> Especially since your response when it was posted was not an, "Oh my
> >> gawd, I forgot about that letter!" ... but instead a snippy response
> >> about thanking Debra for sending the e-mail around.
>
> >> You then disappeared quickly ... but hopefully not before it was made
> >> explicitly clear that the e-mail did not come from Debra.
>
> >>>"paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:486b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> >>>> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:7BFak.20559$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >>>>> Restating a false claim doesn't make it accurate.
> >>>>> You seem to be referring to the fact that, as a result of my move to a
> >>>>> new
> >>>>> apartment, some files have been inaccessible for a while--not
> >>>>> intentionally "hidden."
>
> >>>> You are saying you admit you were wrong to claim Mary F didn't know the
> >>>> contents of 'judyth.doc' until Judyth read it to her ? ( Whatever can
> >>>> have
> >>>> given you that idea?)
>
> >>>> And your excuse is that you didn't have access to the email you received
> >>>> weeks prior to that event that informed you otherwise ? You are really
> >>>> saying you didn't REMEMBER the damn email from Judyth you were cc'd on ,
> >>>> Martin??
>
> >>>> Or is it all so vague to you you can just make stuff up out of thin air
> >>>> &
> >>>> even BELIEVE IT YOURSELF??
>
> >>>> If you want to be taken seriously, you will have to have the courage to
> >>>> FACE FACTS Martin, otherwise you are going to remain a bit of a joke
> >>>> around here.
>
> >>>>> Martin
>
Dave
Dave Reitzes
> On 4 Jul 2008 12:47:03 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> >That's because the posts were MINE, not Pam's.
> >There was no reason for her to repeat them, just because some yahoo on
> >here demands that things be repeated over and over and over or they
> >"don't exist."
>
> >Martin
>
> Sooo...she makes claims of inaccuracies .... refuses to list them
> ...so you do a Carnack and list them for her? How do you know what she
> thinks the errors are since she never would post them? So much for her
> highly vbalued thinking for ones self.<g>
>
> Barb :-)
And Pamela now stands by and lets Martin do the talking for her.
Jeez, it's as if women's liberation never happened.
> >"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:q6sq649db09uclit6...@4ax.com...
> >> On 3 Jul 2008 18:31:33 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> >> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>>Lists of inaccuracies were posted at least twice. As usual, your tactic
> >>>was to ignore them and again claim none were cited.
>
> >> I don't recall any either. If they were posted, give us a google link.
>
> >> An advanced google froups search for: reitzes judyth web errors with
> >> Pamela as author turned up two posts ... neither of them having
> >> anything to do with this.
>
> >> Where CAN we see all those errors she references listed?
>
> >>>Martin
>
> >>>"Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
JLeyd...@aol.com
> Do you mean the Cancun fiasco that was started by McAdams posting a false
> version of Judyth's book? Or the Cancun fiasco that was started by Barb
> claiming that Cancun did not exist until 1972 and that no people lived
> there and it was on a jungle?
>
I think we've covered this before, Tony. Check the Google archives.
You know how to Google,don't you?
JGL
JLeyd...@aol.com
> The initial claim was that Sherry wrote and sent the messages on Judyth's computer. When it was asked why Sherry specifically signed some of these messages as "Elect Lady" (Judyth's Internet nom de plume at the time), it was subsequently claimed that Judyth CREATED the messages, but Sherry ALTERED and POSTED the messages.
>
> Any of this sound familiar?
Well, you can't say Team Judyth lacked imagination but they never could
figure out how to get her book out except to pay to have it printed. And
we know how that worked out. She blasted Shackelford on her blog for
going behind her back and messing everything up.
JGL
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> Half-truths are not quite accurately described as "facts."
>
> Martin
>
Half truths? Does that mean you did interview Robt. Baker but not Marina
Oswald? Or does it mean you interviewed Marina but not Robt.Baker?
Well, here's the whole truth: You didn't interview either of them because
you were scared to death of what Judyth might say. Wouldn't even pick up
the phone and talk to the ex-husband who lived with her for 25 or so years
and might just know if she was a crackpot. . Unbelievable.
JGL
Steve Thomas
wrote:
> Enough of this "disappeared" crap. I left on a trip that had been planned
> with my family for quite some time. I'm tired of your little gossip group's
> innuendoes on this matter. You take no knowledge, add suspicions, and
> declare your assumptions as "possibly" factual. Garbage in, garbage out.
>
Well if it didnt happen so often we might "possibly" believe you, but
its not the first time this happened. I recall you doing the same thing
when Blackburst slapped Team Judyth with the fact that David Lewis by his
own admission didnt work at Continental Trailways in 63 and therefore
could NOT have given Oswald info on the commings and going of cuban
exiles. You disappeared for a week on that one too with no respose before
or after your "trip," on the huge contradiction between the facts and Team
Judyth line/story/falsehood/fabrication.
> Martin
>
> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:gkrq64t90vv3io2np...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On 3 Jul 2008 18:30:31 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> > <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>I was getting up to 50 e-mails a day relating to Judyth.
> >>Gee, I wonder why one from several years ago doesn't come
> >>immediately to mind.
>
> >>Martin
>
> > What utter BS. You certainly didn't seem to have ANY doubt when you
> > declared and maintained that Mary had NO idea what was in the
> > attachment until it was read to her during the tape recorder raid in
> > April.
>
> > A quite strong, bullying and demanding letter like Judyth's e-mail a
> > month earlier ... despite being reminded about it explicitly ... just
> > slipped your mind? Yet you had definite recsll about the most minute
> > details of other things regarding the attachment and that whole period
> > of time.
>
> > Yeah, that's gonna fly real far, Martin.
>
> > Especially since your response when it was posted was not an, "Oh my
> > gawd, I forgot about that letter!" ... but instead a snippy response
> > about thanking Debra for sending the e-mail around.
>
> > You then disappeared quickly ... but hopefully not before it was made
> > explicitly clear that the e-mail did not come from Debra.
>
> >>"paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
> >>news:486b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> >>> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:7BFak.20559$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >>>> Restating a false claim doesn't make it accurate.
> >>>> You seem to be referring to the fact that, as a result of my move to a
> >>>> new
> >>>> apartment, some files have been inaccessible for a while--not
> >>>> intentionally "hidden."
>
> >>> You are saying you admit you were wrong to claim Mary F didn't know the
> >>> contents of 'judyth.doc' until Judyth read it to her ? ( Whatever can
> >>> have
> >>> given you that idea?)
>
> >>> And your excuse is that you didn't have access to the email you received
> >>> weeks prior to that event that informed you otherwise ? You are really
> >>> saying you didn't REMEMBER the damn email from Judyth you were cc'd on ,
> >>> Martin??
>
> >>> Or is it all so vague to you you can just make stuff up out of thin air
> >>> &
> >>> even BELIEVE IT YOURSELF??
>
> >>> If you want to be taken seriously, you will have to have the courage to
> >>> FACE FACTS Martin, otherwise you are going to remain a bit of a joke
> >>> around here.
>
> >>>> Martin
>
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Jul 4, 3:12?pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 4 Jul 2008 12:47:03 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>>
>> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >That's because the posts were MINE, not Pam's.
>> >There was no reason for her to repeat them, just because some yahoo on
>> >here demands that things be repeated over and over and over or they
>> >"don't exist."
>>
>> >Martin
>>
>> Sooo...she makes claims of inaccuracies .... refuses to list them
>> ...so you do a Carnack and list them for her? How do you know what she
>> thinks the errors are since she never would post them? So much for her
>> highly vbalued thinking for ones self.<g>
>>
>> Barb :-)
>
>
>And Pamela now stands by and lets Martin do the talking for her.
>
>Jeez, it's as if women's liberation never happened.
Oh no ya don't, we already burned our bras, there's no going back.<g>
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
and in that context, your comment makes no sense.
The claim made was that because she was a U.S. citizen, that she had
obviously fled the U.S. for asylum in Sweden. In fact, she had fled from
HUNGARY to seek asylum in Sweden, so the fact that she was a U.S. citizen
had nothing to do with WHICH COUNTRY she fled. Try to pay attention,
instead of wasting your time hammering away with demands that I retract
something based on a single posted e-mail, when I don't currently have
access to the full e-mail stream context.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2nps64pa4krtb63ma...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
repeating things. As usual, when a list of errors is posted, Dave simply
ignores them or denies they are errors--and then later blandly posts that
"no list of errors" has been posted, and demands to see them. As we all
know, Dave would have retained a copy of the original post.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:muss64dap2v96g9kv...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
Stop wasting our time by repeating the same demands over and over.
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:72538003-d7bc-47a1...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 4, 12:47?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
Martin Shackelford
time responding to your demands, it's "anti-feminist." Is there any ploy
you won't try?
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3a571505-be07-4925...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Peter Fokes
Not surprising Leyden obsesses over matters pertaining to Judyth and
voices his disinterest in the thoughts and knowledge of the man
closest to President Kennedy.
Actually it's blatantly obvious Leyden's real game is disparaging
other posters to satiate some weird obsession.
To see Leyden, tomln and others of their ilk in full flight, read the
NUTHOUSE.
lol
Peter Fokes,
Toronto