Re: Judyth Baker Book
John McAdams
<walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Martin" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>news:e7d6n5$8...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>> Happy to provide some details about the book, now that I am back at the
>> computer.
>> There are two volumes, totaling over 700 pages, including an index and 55
>> pages of End Notes with additional documentation.
>> In the main text, there are over 300 illustrations, including photographs
>> and reproductions of documents.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>
>Martin,
>
> Now that you're free to talk, please tell us what evidence is
>provided that Oswald was involved in an anti-Castro plot. What is the best
>piece of evidence in this book?
Oh, my!
Martin is now deprived of that excuse, isn't he?
When people here actually get the book and have a chance to look at
it, he's going to be *very* busy!
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Chad Zimmerman
She does have a short story, supposedly written by Lee, typed on paper from
Robert Baker's family...without handwriting...
She has the green glass that she says he gave her. She has an example of a
code system that Lee wrote on a napkin for her...but it is a reproduced
example that she came up with.
She has the initial 'J' that doesn't look anything like hers on the bottom
of Lee's timecards, with two examples of her 'J's' that don't look like it-
but serve as an example of how her handwriting changes in a couple of years.
I haven't found much of anything in the book that proves she had any actual
acquaintence with Sherman, Lee, etc., yet she apparently saved every scrap
of paper she ever touched.
Good luck examining most of her *evidence*, as it only rarely could be
printed in any worse clarity than it is.
Chad
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:449ad0e2...@news.alt.net...
Tom Lowry
flipping hamburgers . I think that occupation is what probably what gave
her the inspiration to write the book : Put it on the griddle and see if
it sizzles . Frys with that book anyone ? Tom Lowry
Martin Shackelford
it--but continue to reject item-by-item piecemeal attack pieces, so
don't waste your time, unless you are just bulking things up again for
propaganda purposes.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
received, reviewed and carefully evaluated the evidence in a 720 page
book. He grabs on to a few examples that he feels easily able to
dismiss--the usual piecemeal approach taken here by her critics. He
misleadingly describes the clarity of the illustrations--a few didn't
come out as well as expected, but most are quite sharp and clear.
Apparently, his primary goal is to discourage anyone else from looking
at the book. Not surprisingly, his speed-evaluation confirms what he has
been saying all along. I'm satisfied to wait for a credible reviewer.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
flipped burgers. She has been a journalist, and a teacher for many years
now.
Try not to be quite so completely off the beam, Tom.
Martin
Anthony Marsh
> Don't expect much at this late date , from a women who until recentely was
> flipping hamburgers . I think that occupation is what probably what gave
> her the inspiration to write the book : Put it on the griddle and see if
> it sizzles . Frys with that book anyone ? Tom Lowry
Don't expect much from a WC defender who can't even spell correctly and
misrepresents the facts.
jpsh...@my-deja.com
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Chad is hilarious. He would have us believe that he has already
> received, reviewed and carefully evaluated the evidence in a 720 page
> book. He grabs on to a few examples that he feels easily able to
> dismiss--the usual piecemeal approach taken here by her critics. He
> misleadingly describes the clarity of the illustrations--a few didn't
> come out as well as expected, but most are quite sharp and clear.
> Apparently, his primary goal is to discourage anyone else from looking
> at the book. Not surprisingly, his speed-evaluation confirms what he has
> been saying all along. I'm satisfied to wait for a credible reviewer.
What did Publishers Weekly say?
>
> Martin
>
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>
steve
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Not so busy after all. I'll discuss the book with anyone who has read
> it
in other words bought it
--but continue to reject item-by-item piecemeal attack pieces
this logic is just plain silly, your basically stating that there is no
smoking gun in her book by responding that way. your saying dont look at
the evidence piece by piece when thats how an investigation is done.
instead you want us to look at her whole "story" i'd like to see how a ct
disects the wc or hsca without doing it buy each piece of evidence on
record. your proble is there is no evidence besides a reily's paystub,
everything else has been just her word (and yours)so far.
so
> don't waste your time, unless you are just bulking things up again for
> propaganda purposes.
the only propaganda on this newsgroup is you trying to sell this
chick book
Martin Shackelford
more widely available, which should be soon.
Martin
Chad Zimmerman
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7g9m7$k...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Chad is hilarious.
Hehe. Yeah, I was trying to be funny. Actually, I was relating some of
this wonderous evidence to the NG.
He would have us believe that he has already
> received, reviewed and carefully evaluated the evidence in a 720 page
> book.
Carefully, no. Have I examined some of it, yes. Have I received it, yes.
He grabs on to a few examples that he feels easily able to
> dismiss--the usual piecemeal approach taken here by her critics.
Oh, boy. Actually, there are points that I know about that I'm not going
to discuss yet (grin).
He
> misleadingly describes the clarity of the illustrations--a few didn't come
> out as well as expected, but most are quite sharp and clear.
Baloney. Some are "sharp and clear". Many are reproduced with such
pixelated reproduction that they are very difficult to read.
Would you like me to scan selections for the NG?
Hey, on page 377, she tries to substantiate her claim that she initialed
Lee's timecards by printing a couple of examples of her signature- neither
of which are anywhere remotely close to her own 'J'. Couldn't she find one
single 'J' of hers that looked like that? She claims that this is a
transitionary period for her signature (1962-1964). Any 1963's?
> Apparently, his primary goal is to discourage anyone else from looking at
> the book.
Actually, I'd like everyone to read it! The more the merrier!
Not surprisingly, his speed-evaluation confirms what he has
> been saying all along. I'm satisfied to wait for a credible reviewer.
I'm not done, Martin- neither are several others that will scrutinize her
account very closely. You're touting a book that is nothing more than a
ticking time bomb. Now that she's printed it, she can't go back and
minimize the blunders...as she did with the Cancun reference and Lee's
tooth episode.
Cripes, with all the emails and talking she's done over the years about
things, it'll only be a short while before the bombs start exploding.
Chad
JLeyd...@aol.com
to have worked in a secret caner lab. That's even more improbable than
the Oswald affair in my view. She said in the sample Chap. 4 on line that
she went to New Orleans to be a summer intern in Dr. Mary Sherman's lab so
there must be some correspondence to that effect, IF she's talling the
truth. She also indicated in that chapter that the internship was to be a
paid position so she should have pay slips (or something similar) like she
did at Reily's. As you can see, I'm trying to save $49.99 + S&H here.
JGL
Martin Shackelford
concerned. I've never claimed there was a "smoking gun." It is VERY RARE
that a "smoking gun" resolves an issue. What the book contains is a
detailed, coherent, consistent body of evidence which support's Judyth's
account. If someone is too lazy to deal with evidence in a mature way,
they might as well skip the book. Your theory that isolated evaluation
of individual pieces of evidence out of context is "how an investigation
is done" is absurd. Investigators place everything in its context to
arrive at conclusions. I'd say that you has been watching too much TV,
but even an intelligent TV viewer knows better.
Your statement (without seeing the book) that the "only evidence" is a
Reily paystub is dead wrong. You may be excused for Your gross
ignorance, but not for your assumption that you know all the relevant
facts.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
which doesn't explain why you felt qualified to make sweeping judgments
about it at a point when you had examined even less of it. You again
make vague references to "many" illustrations which are hard to read.
Opening the book at random (p. 188), I looked to see whether the
illustrations matched your description. I looked at the next 62
illustrations, or about one-sixth of those in the book:
61 were entirely clear
1 (of which the relevant portion appeared in a clear enlargement next to
it) was a bit fuzzy.
Your claim that "many" illustrations are unclear is simply false. You
rely on others not having the book and being able to evaluate your phony
claims.
You asks if there are "any 1963" examples of her handwriting. If you had
waited to launch your attack until you had actually carefully READ the
book, you would know that there are.
You predict that "bombs" will soon be exploding, but so far you have
produced only duds.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Under the mistaken impression that Chad is a reliable source, you've
jumped back in to seek his "expertise." You would like to be able to cite
Chad's OPINION in future posts as a FACT. You continue to ignore the
ACTUAL fact that there are at least three witnesses to her relationship
with Oswald. You also apparently skipped over the fact, mentioned in
earlier posts, that a Ferrie neighbor described a young woman fitting
Judyth's description frequently going in and out of Ferrie's apartment
that summer. As we know, he didn't have a lot of girlfriends over. Chad's
OPINION, I"m sure, will be much more convenient for you.
You go with another red herring as well--Judyth mentioned that she was
SUPPOSED to work as an intern under Dr. Mary Sherman --that never
happened. So you ask if there are "pay stubs," as those from Reily, FOR A
JOB THAT DIDN"T HAPPEN. You don't want to save your money--you want to
protect your carefully-nurtured ignorance. In case you ever decide to
emerge from your "bubble boy" shell, the original summer plan is discussed
in the last section of Chapter 3. Continuing to spoon-feed the research to
you, the change in plans is detailed in Chapter 4, section 8, Chapter 5,
Chapter 6 section 3, and Chapter 10.
No need to thank me--you've previously admitted that you do no research
yourself.
Martin
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
> You've received the book, but admit having only examined "some of it,"
> which doesn't explain why you felt qualified to make sweeping judgments
> about it at a point when you had examined even less of it.
You, who only has limited comments from me, aren't qualified enough to
know what parts I've read or any peripheral research I may have conducted.
You again
> make vague references to "many" illustrations which are hard to read.
Many of the illustrations are so small and poorly reproduced that one
cannot properly examine them, Martin.
Would you prefer I make a list?
> Opening the book at random (p. 188), I looked to see whether the
> illustrations matched your description. I looked at the next 62
> illustrations, or about one-sixth of those in the book:
> 61 were entirely clear
> 1 (of which the relevant portion appeared in a clear enlargement next to
> it) was a bit fuzzy.
> Your claim that "many" illustrations are unclear is simply false. You rely
> on others not having the book and being able to evaluate your phony
> claims.
> You asks if there are "any 1963" examples of her handwriting. If you had
> waited to launch your attack until you had actually carefully READ the
> book, you would know that there are.
> You predict that "bombs" will soon be exploding, but so far you have
> produced only duds.
Nice to see you have such confidence in her tale.
Time will tell, won't it?
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
If you're looking for proof of the deep stuff, good luck. She's documented
her early research quite well, but beyond that...most of it is her
word...or that of her cohorts- Anna Lewis, etc.
I'll see if I can find anything of any real substance for you. Don't hold
your breath. It is not as impressive as Martin has deemed.
Chad
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151085266....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Chad, is there anything in this thing that would validate Judyth's claim
> to have worked in a secret caner lab. That's even more improbable than
> the Oswald affair in my view. She said in the sample Chap. 4 on line that
What in your opinion is so improbably about the idea? Have you read lots
of MK/ULTRA documents?
paul seaton
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7irhh$k...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> You seem to have been "born yesterday," as far as this newsgroup is
> concerned. I've never claimed there was a "smoking gun." It is VERY RARE
> that a "smoking gun" resolves an issue. What the book contains is a
> detailed, coherent, consistent body of evidence which support's Judyth's
> account. If someone is too lazy to deal with evidence in a mature way,
> they might as well skip the book.
"dealing with evidence in a mature way" seems to mean "not actually being
so uncouth as to ask for actual PROOF of any of Judyth's wilder claims".
Without actual PROOF Martin, why the hell would anyone take any of this
stuff seriously ? It would be like accepting at face value those alien
abduction stories, just because they are not actually DISprovable.
Paul Seaton
Canuck
Tom Lowry wrote:
> Don't expect much at this late date , from a women who until recentely was
> flipping hamburgers . I think that occupation is what probably what gave
> her the inspiration to write the book : Put it on the griddle and see if
> it sizzles . Frys with that book anyone ? Tom Lowry
>
Tom, "women" should be "woman", "recentely" should be "recently" and
"Frys" should be "Fries". And what's wrong with flipping hamburgers,
for flipping sakes? - prw
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
Surely you missed the beautiful reproduction of the photograph on page 39
and the blob that is of Mary Sherman.
Perhaps you missed the really inadequate image on page 47 of a letter
written to Robert Baker.
Maybe you missed the completely inadequate reproduction of an envelope,
letter and ad on page 52.
The left hand image on page 54 is almost unreadable...in any language.
The image on page 93 that is hard to read because of the small size of the
reproduction.
The 'Ferrie lecture notes' on page 99 are terribly small and largely
unreadable.
The blow up of Lee on page 104 is terribly pixelated. The caption, which
is on the wrong page, states: "...Could the white area shown (blown up)
here, of Lee's pocket be a container holding Lee's tooth?" Gee, it looks
like it could just about be anything white, since the blow up is so poor
as to prevent exclusion of most things.
The newspaper article and report on page 119 is almost impossible to read.
Nice, quality picture of Anna Lewis on page 124.
Inadequate reproduction of document on page 214, very hard to read.
On page 229, Judyth proclaims that the A-1 agency document links her and
Lee together. Unfortunately, you can't read it.
Page 240, image of clasp is virutally unreadable, hence Judyth's notation
telling us what it says.
Page 247, image of Junie is terribly pixelated.
Page 269, paystubs are hard to read due to poor reproduction, same with
blow-ups on next page. Judyth has to clarify what they say.
Page 312, blowup of 'tattoos' is horrible and you can't even tell if tattoos
are there.
Need I even mention the images on page 313? Picture of Lee, two unreadable
and tiny reproductions of documents and a pixilated blow up.
I think we'll stop there. The reproductions in the source notes get quite a
bit worse. Anyone looking for quality reprints of her *evidence* will be
very disappointed with this book.
Tell me, Martin, what do you think the most convincing evidence is that
proves that Judyth knew:
1. Dr. Mary Sherman
2. "Dr." David Ferrie
3. Dr. Alton Ochsner
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7iruo$i...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
> Under the mistaken impression that Chad is a reliable source, you've
> jumped back in to seek his "expertise." You would like to be able to cite
> Chad's OPINION in future posts as a FACT. You continue to ignore the
> ACTUAL fact that there are at least three witnesses to her relationship
> with Oswald. You also apparently skipped over the fact, mentioned in
> earlier posts, that a Ferrie neighbor described a young woman fitting
> Judyth's description frequently going in and out of Ferrie's apartment
> that summer. As we know, he didn't have a lot of girlfriends over. Chad's
> OPINION, I"m sure, will be much more convenient for you.
Actually, he was asking me as someone that owns the book to see if there
was any real evidence of the alleged relationship with Dr. Mary Sherman.
He was not asking of my opinion, but asking me to be a vehicle of
information.
And, no, thus far, I've seen no real evidence that Dr. Sherman knew Judyth
at all. Of course, I'm still looking.
Chad
Martin Shackelford
By all means, make a list of the illustrations you claim are "too
pixillated" to understand. Now you seem to be shifting to "small and
poorly reproduced," which also misrepresents them.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Lewis has never liked Judyth much. They got along briefly, and then parted
company. After they did so, Debra Conway tried to get Anna to "admit" that
she hadn't seen Judyth and Lee together, but Anna responded that
everything she had said was true, and she took back nothing. For you, of
course, Anna is a "cohort" because she is a supporting witness. I suppose
this also applies to Mac MacCullough, Adrian Alba, and Ferrie's
neighbor--though the neighbor had contact only with Ed Haslam, and Alba
was interviewed by an investigator hired by a Canadian researcher. Like
McAdams, you declare any supporting evidence "not credible". On what
grounds? Because it supports her account.
Frankly, anyone looking for an objective evaluation of Judyth's book
should not rely on "Dr. Chad."
Martin
Martin Shackelford
gun," and that the elements of evidence reinforce each other.
Martin
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7iruo$i...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
> Under the mistaken impression that Chad is a reliable source, you've
> jumped back in to seek his "expertise." You would like to be able to cite
> Chad's OPINION in future posts as a FACT. You continue to ignore the
> ACTUAL fact that there are at least three witnesses to her relationship
> with Oswald. You also apparently skipped over the fact, mentioned in
> earlier posts, that a Ferrie neighbor described a young woman fitting
> Judyth's description frequently going in and out of Ferrie's apartment
> that summer.
Oh, so Dave had a woman that visited and it fit her general description...
Case Closed. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Her three witnesses are really good ones, too. She spends a fair amount of
time
in the source notes pacifying some of these, doesn't she, Martin?
Anna Lewis and her spontaneously spontaneous recording...that was made
spontaneously.
Mac McCullough the mob musician.
Michael Riconoscuito, convicted felon.
Her family.
William Findley, another felon.
Ed Haslam- whose own book is dovetailed by this one and is promoted numerous
time
in the book.
By the way, Deb Conway was present during this spontaneously spontaneous
recording. Why doesn't she support Judyth anymore? Do you know what it was
that
turned her off of Judyth's claims?
You've mentioned that you have to take this thing as a whole, and not look
at individual
things. Why?
Because there isn't squat for good, hard evidence in the book and you have
to be wowed by
the volume of stuff she's assembled.
I love how she counters points made by others that conflict with her
version. She simply says
that it isn't true because she was there and knew otherwise.
Chad
Martin Shackelford
illustration out of 62.
You report 9 prior to that, and 7 after that. Out of well over 300
illustrations, 16 is hardly "many," as you originally reported.
Let's see how reliable this handful of examples is:
p. 39: This photo isn't very good. We used the best copy we could find,
and it didn't blow up well. It isn't, however, too pixillated to
comprehend, as you reported "many" illustrations were.
p. 47: The Robert Baker is clear and easily readable. Perhaps you need
to define "inadequate."
p. 52: the image of the envelope, which you describe as "completely
inadequate," is clear and easily readable.
p. 54: this is a portion of a page from a Russian textbook. It is not
expected that the reader would be trying to read the Russian text. This
is really a silly criticism, Chad--utterly without merit.
p. 93: this illustration is clear and easy to read. I had no trouble
reading it without my glasses. Maybe you need a magnifier, Chad--or new
reading glasses.
p. 99: The Ferrie lecture notes are not easy to read. I apologize for
not making them larger, as they would have fit with no problem. This is
a valid criticism.
p. 104: the blowups aren't great, but neither are they "terribly
pixillated." Had I noticed it, I would have made the blowup from a
better copy of the picture. My apologies. Partly valid criticism.
p. 119: I had no trouble reading the newspaper article.
p. 124: Anna doesn't like having her picture taken, so this was made
from the best of three Polaroid photos. No apologies for this one.
p. 214: the document is clear and readable.
p. 229: The document is particularly readable, but then the text of a
standard employment agency contract isn't the key point. As it is
Commission Exhibit 1951, I have no doubt you can find a clearer copy if
you need to confirm this.
p. 240: The caption includes the entire text of the clasp, and the photo
is clear enough to confirm its accuracy. This is a quibble at best.
p. 247: Image of Junie is SOMEWHAT pixilated--no difficulty knowing what
it is. A partly valid criticism. Some of these photos appeared clearer
in the file sent to the printer--but a few unaccountably appeared
noticeably fuzzier in print, while others came out fine.
p. 269: images of the pay stubs are clear and readable. The illustration
is about what she WROTE on one of them, which is easily readable.
p. 312: This is one of these I mentioned that was much clearer
originally--I pointed out the problem with this one myself when I saw
the book.
p. 313: we recognized that the two documents were in small
format--that's why we enlarged the relevant portions. The Oswald photo
is a familiar one, and clearer than the Junie photo you objected to. The
text is easily readable. You are grasping at straws, Chad.
OK--out of well over 300 illustrations, of which you said "many" were
too pixilated to understand, you finally came up with only 16. Out of
those 16, NONE are too pixilated to understand.
Six of them are a little fuzzy, but present no real problem
One is a photo of a textbook, the text of which wasn't intended to be read.
One readable, but could be better.
One just appears to be a photo you don't like the looks of--no problem
with the reproduction.
One just seems to be a quibble about the presentation.
Six are perfectly clear and readable.
Even if one granted you 9, instead of 3, valid criticisms, that's hardly
"many" out of well over 300.
You then return to the vagueness of your original charge, calling the
illustrations in the source notes "quite a bit worse." This charge is
also without merit--I challenge you to come up with a list of examples
that fit that statement (hopefully closer than what you came up with to
support your original false claim).
Martin
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
> The proof is there. What I said is that there is no single "smoking gun,"
> and that the elements of evidence reinforce each other.
So do those in any well researched book...
The 1353 source notes in the back should be a clue to that.
Chad
Martin Shackelford
1) Red herrings to divert focus from the actual subject matters.
2) Ad hominem attacks.
3) Exaggerated claims which rapidly shrink as examples are presented.
4) Silly demands to post parts of the book so it can be discussed,
presented as demands for "discussion."
5) A behind the scenes effort to stop sales of the book.
Martin
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7kvld$e...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> You seem quick to make claims about things you know nothing about. Anna
> Lewis has never liked Judyth much. They got along briefly, and then parted
> company. After they did so, Debra Conway tried to get Anna to "admit" that
> she hadn't seen Judyth and Lee together, but Anna responded that
> everything she had said was true, and she took back nothing. For you, of
> course, Anna is a "cohort" because she is a supporting witness. I suppose
> this also applies to Mac MacCullough, Adrian Alba, and Ferrie's neighbor--
The neighbor didn't pinpoint Judyth, Martin. You, youself, said it was a
general description.
though the neighbor had contact only with Ed Haslam, and Alba
> was interviewed by an investigator hired by a Canadian researcher. Like
> McAdams, you declare any supporting evidence "not credible". On what
> grounds? Because it supports her account.
We shall see in time, won't we.
>
> Frankly, anyone looking for an objective evaluation of Judyth's book
> should not rely on "Dr. Chad."
Yeah, you should believe all of the wonderful quotes attributed to "Dr."
Dave Ferrie because
Judyth says so.
It is a wonderous read, however, Martin. It is so nice that she went into so
much detail!
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
are fine for their purpose, but many are horrid- particularly many in the
source notes.
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7kv83$8...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Martin Shackelford
again, so I guess it's time to go back over the actual details again.
Quoting from a message from the "60 Minutes" producer who, under Don
Hewitt, worked on the planned Judyth segment for the program:
"Let me just say that we did not walk away from the story...indeed we are
prepared to go ahead."
He explains that the reason they backed away was a contract her former
agent tried to get them to sign which contained objectionable provisions.
He continues:
"We have the highest regard for Judyth."
This is one of the people her critics keep claiming "dumped" her.
You have already seen Don Hewitt's confirmation that he, too, remained
ready to go ahead with the story--in a videotaped interview for the Sixth
Floor Museum, broadcast on CSPAN in November 2003.
There is also the fact that one of their consultants for the segment,
former Congressional staffer Howard Liebengood, found the often-mentioned
psychiatrist's report worthless, and made a point of reading it to us over
the phone. No one there took it seriously. Liebengood spent hours going
through Judyth's documentation (as did Nigel Turner, before deciding to
devote an hour to her), and said it was consistent with documents he had
seen during the Church Committee investigation intelligence agencies.
"60 Minutes" was so uninterested that they spent many months working on
the segment, flew Judyth to New York, reimbursed her for lost wages, and
made coordinated plans for a simultaneous story in U.S. News and World
Report and another in a prominent newspaper. This continued for weeks
after the psychiatrist submitted his report, if that gives you any idea of
the impact it had.
Martin
JLeyd...@aol.com
Shackelford already has changed Judyth's story. She said she went to New
Orleans to work for Dr. Mary Sherman but Shackelford says she didn't work
for Dr. Sherman. Apparently, she didn't get paid either so there will be
no pay slips. In fact, there is no paper trail at all to validate her
work in the secret cancer lab. All we have is this Ferrie neighbor who
claims to have seen a Judyth look alike going into Ferrie's apartment and
apparently could recall it vividly 35 years later. Amazing stuff!
JGL
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
Nobody is trying to reduce the book sales...which apparently is of concern
to you and the rest of the Team.
This book lacks the blockbuster *proof* that the Team has been touting for
years.
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151257399.9...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks, Chad, but don't bother looking on my account any longer,
> Shackelford already has changed Judyth's story. She said she went to New
> Orleans to work for Dr. Mary Sherman but Shackelford says she didn't work
> for Dr. Sherman. Apparently, she didn't get paid either so there will be
> no pay slips. In fact, there is no paper trail at all to validate her
> work in the secret cancer lab. All we have is this Ferrie neighbor who
> claims to have seen a Judyth look alike going into Ferrie's apartment and
> apparently could recall it vividly 35 years later. Amazing stuff!
According to the book, Judyth was in Mary's place all the time...just not
when Mary was around.
The neighbor, apparently, described someone of Judyth's general
description...
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
YEah, let me get right on that, Martin. I don't have anything better to do
than deal with your denials that the picture reproductions in that book
are less than stellar.
Anyone buying the book can see for themselves...as they squint to try and
read what is on the document, etc.
Chad
Martin Shackelford
As for Ms. Conway, you'd have to ask her.
Adding another batch of misrepresentations of what's in the book doesn't
impress me, Chad.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
videotaping--it was her idea, and she brought the camera. We found out
about it when we arrived--it wasn't on the agenda at all, but it's nice
to have the tapes.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
take this one with a grain of salt. I personally edited the End Notes,
so misrepresenting them won't go over well with me.
Martin Shackelford
As Judyth said, the PLAN was for her to work in Dr. Sherman's lab.
In fact, it didn't work out that way. The contradiction was not in
Judyth's account, but between what was planned and how things turned out.
Try to be more logical.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
The neighbor reported a woman fitting Judyth's description going in and
out of Dave Ferrie's apartment that summer, not Mary Sherman's.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
An attempt was made to block sales of the book. That's a fact, reported
to us by Trafford.
Stick to what you know--skip what you "think" you know.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
conclusion they come to regarding your credibility.
Not one of your regular allies, but someone objective. Support from the
usual suspects is about as valuable as John Garner thought the Vice
Presidency.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
up with enough genuine supportive examples, and throw in a bunch of
ringers, you can't be bothered to respond. Very understandable.
Martin
Anthony Marsh
> Thanks, Chad, but don't bother looking on my account any longer,
> Shackelford already has changed Judyth's story. She said she went to New
> Orleans to work for Dr. Mary Sherman but Shackelford says she didn't work
> for Dr. Sherman. Apparently, she didn't get paid either so there will be
> no pay slips. In fact, there is no paper trail at all to validate her
> work in the secret cancer lab. All we have is this Ferrie neighbor who
> claims to have seen a Judyth look alike going into Ferrie's apartment and
> apparently could recall it vividly 35 years later. Amazing stuff!
>
"Work for" or "work with"?
There is a slight difference you know.
Chad Zimmerman
How the hell can anyone stop the sales of the book? That usually happens on
the grounds that someone will sue for libel. Is that what you're suggesting
to us?
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7nulj$i...@dispatch.concentric.net...
steve
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Not so busy after all. I'll discuss the book with anyone who has read
> it--but continue to reject item-by-item piecemeal attack pieces, so
> don't waste your time, unless you are just bulking things up again for
> propaganda purposes.
>
just to clarify, if someone reads the book and thinks its crap, how
should we go about asking you about it, i only know how to do things
item by item, i dont have more than 2 hands and one keyboard. so when
i see something that is bogus how do you propose i start a debate?
Chad Zimmerman
makes it sound like it was Sherman's place and not Ferrie's.
However, I was addressing JL's comments, where he mentions Sherman AND
Ferrie.
He even went so far as to mention the neighbor of Ferrie's, which is what I
was
addressing.
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7nuon$8...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Chad Zimmerman
> Given the "accuracy" of your earlier general statements, one should also
> take this one with a grain of salt. I personally edited the End Notes, so
> misrepresenting them won't go over well with me.
Apparently this is a subjective discussion. Your opinion versus mine. I
stand by
mine. You stand by yours.
A stand off.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> Well, you certainly don't know much about the witnesses you're discussing.
Martin, I took it from the source notes on page 665:
Anna Lewis- "Anna made a spontaneous videotape in the presence of seven
people
early in January, 2000...Anna then made a spontaneous audiotape with her
daughter
was present as a witness to its spontaneous...She speaks spontaneously..."
William 'Mac' McCullough- "...was once employed for various duties by Carlos
Marcello's organization in New Orleans as
a musician..."
Michael Riconosciuto-"He doesn't count, either, because he's in prison..."
William Findley- "A former prisoner at Angola has also spoken out- he
doesn't count because he
was a felon."
Ed Haslam- "His evidence supposedly doesn't count because my book helps
support his book."
So, Martin, exactly where was I off about the witnesses? Those quotes are
directly from her book, from the
source notes that you edited.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> By the way, Ms. Conway wasn't simply "present" during the videotaping--it
> was her idea, and she brought the camera. We found out about it when we
> arrived--it wasn't on the agenda at all, but it's nice to have the tapes.
Great. I really needed to know that, not only was she present, she brought
the videocamera for the spontaneous meeting.
Doesn't exactly answer why she flew the Team's coop, does it?
Chad
JLeyd...@aol.com
in CBS 60 Minutes dumped Judyth. Well, fine let him pick any verb he
likes as long as it doesn't change the final result of Judyth's 60
Minutes episode. As we all know, she never made it on the air and
that, of course, is the bottome line.
And if it makes him feel any better about this sorry episode, he's free
to invent any little story he chooses to ease the pain of Judyth's
dumping.... ooops, departure. Just one word of caution for him. Don't
blame Judyth's former agent as you seem to be doing for the flameout.
You know what happened when you accused him of "messing up" Judyth's
ms. You had to issue a humniliating on-line apology that anyone can
see in the Google archives. Just type "Clarification, Correction and
Retraction Regarding Judyth's Agent" in the search box. Amazing how
the threat of a lawsuit can straighten out a guy's thinking.
JGL
steve
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> The proof is there. What I said is that there is no single "smoking
> gun," and that the elements of evidence reinforce each other.
>
1st personal insult
> >>You seem to have been "born yesterday," as far as this newsgroup is
> >>concerned.
you claimed her story was provable. which dosent/shouldnt include her
saying so or newsclippings or a paystub that puts her in the city of
new orleans.
I've never claimed there was a "smoking gun."
you claimed there is proof, whats the difference between
proof and a smoking gun?
It is VERY RARE
> >>that a "smoking gun" resolves an issue.
thats what a smoking gun is Martin!
What the book contains is a
> >>detailed,
well read
>>>>coherent,
well understood
>>>> consistent
well thought out
>>>>body of evidence
stories
which support's Judyth's
> >>account.
what you mean to say is "we reasearched all available materials and
came up with a pretty good story by injecting judith into places and
events that have been known/suspected" now i know you and her will deny
it, you'll cite this that and the other, but the question has to be asked,
which came first, the chicken or the egg? does judith's account prove what
is known, or does what has been known prove judith's account. is there
anything independent/NEW that can be verified?
2nd personal insult
If someone is too lazy to deal with evidence in a mature way,
> >>they might as well skip the book.
> >
> >
if you think i was "born yesterday" just call me stupid next time(FYI as
far as this newsgroup is concerned i'v been reading it for years how do
you think i know you said there was proof AND THAT YOU WOULD DISCUSS IT
WHEN THE BOOK WAS OUT", if you think i'm "too lazy to deal with the
evidence in a mature way" call me immature, get to the point. you get too
worked up when someone disagrees with you.
steve
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> You seem to have been "born yesterday," as far as this newsgroup is
> that a "smoking gun" resolves an issue. What the book contains is a
> detailed, coherent, consistent body of evidence which support's Judyth's
> account. If someone is too lazy to deal with evidence in a mature way,
> they might as well skip the book. Your theory that isolated evaluation
> of individual pieces of evidence out of context is "how an investigation
> is done" is absurd.
can you point out where i said my "theory that isolated evaluation
of individual pieces of evidence out of context is how an
investigation
is done" "
i never mentioned context did i? and also, what is considered evidence
to you? your not saying that something bogus would be considered
evidence? this is where you and i have a problem, you consider things
that judith says as evidence. the rest of us want something a little
more, for some of us a lot more, and for some reason you cant provide
it. the book is supposed to be her story and evidence but instead we
get 300 illustrations, reproductions, and 1300 source notes to other
previous work(some of which is unproven in itself.) but you will scream
till the end that there is independent verification of her tale and she
didnt even read any of this jfk stuff till after she came public with
her story. which may or may not be true( once again we can only take
her word) but even if she didnt read any of it pre 2000 she has had 6
years to read and get her stuff straight, which in my opinion is the
reason it has taken so long to get what you said would be the facts out
in the public.
Chad Zimmerman
> OK. You're fine with making vague accusations, but when you can't come up
> with enough genuine supportive examples, and throw in a bunch of ringers,
> you can't be bothered to respond. Very understandable.
Actually, I supplied several examples, you denied them...case closed.
Typical Shackelford.
Chad
JLeyd...@aol.com
Lewis, check out the photo of them taken in New Orleans in Jan. 2000.
You can find it in Google Image Search by typing in the name of Martin
Shackelford. Ms. Lewis is hugging Judyth so tightly she could be busted
for lewd & lascivious behavior if a vice cop had happened on the scene.
One pix is worth a thousand words. It's just Shackelford.
JGL
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> You seem quick to make claims about things you know nothing about. Anna
> Lewis has never liked Judyth much. They got along briefly, and then parted
> company. After they did so, Debra Conway tried to get Anna to "admit" that
> she hadn't seen Judyth and Lee together, but Anna responded that
> everything she had said was true, and she took back nothing. For you, of
> course, Anna is a "cohort" because she is a supporting witness. I suppose
> this also applies to Mac MacCullough, Adrian Alba, and Ferrie's
> neighbor--though the neighbor had contact only with Ed Haslam, and Alba
> was interviewed by an investigator hired by a Canadian researcher. Like
> McAdams, you declare any supporting evidence "not credible". On what
> grounds? Because it supports her account.
>
> Frankly, anyone looking for an objective evaluation of Judyth's book
> should not rely on "Dr. Chad."
>
> Martin
>
> Dr. Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > If you're looking for proof of the deep stuff, good luck. She's documented
> > her early research quite well, but beyond that...most of it is her
> > word...or that of her cohorts- Anna Lewis, etc.
> >
> > I'll see if I can find anything of any real substance for you. Don't hold
> > your breath. It is not as impressive as Martin has deemed.
> >
> > Chad
> > <JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1151085266....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
And in addition to the false "contradiction" Leyden has attempted, there
is his false assumption that the interview with the neighbor was "35 years
later"--and, of course, no one has described the neighbor's recollection
as "vivid" except Leyden, who is about as "well-informed" by his biases as
usual.
35 years would be 1998--not sure where Leyden came up with this figure,
except the off the top of his head. Ed Haslam's book came out in 1995--had
the interview been the last thing he did, that would have been in 1994, or
31 years--but it wasn't. The interview had been sitting in Ed's file for
years because, until he learned of Judyth, he didn't connect it to
anything else. The interview, therefore, was conducted less than 30 years
after the events, and likely much less than that. But, for Leyden's
purposes, a "creative" figure of 35 must have sounded better than using
logic or seeking the facts. Leyden, as we recall, has said he doesn't do
research.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
can't discuss it here. Suffice it to say that sales were stopped
briefly, but the action was groundless and I don't expect it to be more
than a temporary problem.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
their own mind about it.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
really anything to discuss, is there Steve?
If you want to discuss a particular topic based on what's in the book,
that's fine. If you one to focus on nit-picking one single piece of
evidence, it's not worth anyone's time.
If you think something's bogus, be specific.
Chad made some general criticisms, then couldn't back them up--but at
least he provided specifics (something he now seems to be backing away
from doing, saying that he doesn't have the time).
If someone is going to attack someone else's reputation, I expect them to
be able to back up their attacks with more than vague misrepresentations.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
1) I didn't know what to expect with Anna Lewis, but found her a very
credible witness--and one who, despite disliking Judyth, and being
offered the chance to retaliate against her by retracting her statement,
responded by saying that she told the truth and she wasn't retracting a
word. She was the wife of David Lewis, but was never questioned during
the Garrison investigation, or any other for that matter. She worked as
a waitress at Thompson's restaurant, and saw Lee and Judyth together there.
2)Mac McCullough was the son of New Orleans restaurant owners. At
various times, he was a musician, and a bouncer in one of the French
Quarter clubs. He saw Lee and Judyth together in the French Quarter, and
in Lafayette Park, a block or so from Reily's, and across the street
from Banister's office.
3) Michael Riconosciuto isn't someone on whom I rely heavily, but he did
seem to know some things about what was happening that summer in New
Orleans that he couldn't have gotten from anything published. His
comments came to us from another researcher.
4) William Findley was a prisoner at Angola who recalled the
relationship the prison had with the state hospital for medical experiments.
5) There has been a lot of loose talk about Ed Haslam's book and
Judyth's account being virtually carbon copies--anyone who has read both
books will recognize that isn't the case. Ed was kind enough to tell us
about the unpublished interview in his files with Ferrie's neighbor.
6) Apparently the footnote didn't mention Adrian Alba, owner of the
Crescent City Garage next door to Reily, who was questioned by an
investigator hired by a Canadian researcher who wanted to see if
Judyth's account was credible. Alba picked out a picture of Judyth from
a photo array of early '60s women about the same age--and identified her
as someone he had seen with Oswald.
7) The same investigator also questioned several Reily employees, all of
whom recalled Judyth, but none of whom recalled Oswald working there
that summer. Of course, Judyth worked in an office where all of the
employees would have seen her when they signed in and out each day--and
in 1963, she was quite a looker.
8) There was also Howard Liebengood, aide to Sen. Howard Baker during
the intelligence committee investigations of the 1970s, who examined
Judyth's evidence, and reported to us that her account was consistent
with classified materials he had examined at the C.I.A. He became a
consultant for "60 Minutes," and when he saw the farce of a
"psychiatrist's report," read it to us over the phone, and told us that
no one there was taking it seriously. "60 Minutes" continued planning a
Judyth segment for some time after that, which would seem to confirm that.
9) We were also told by a relative of Carlos Marcello that everyone in
the Marcello circle knew about Lee and Judyth's affair. The relative had
heard about it in that circle well before Judyth surfaced in 1999.
10) And then there is Marina Oswald, who viewed "The Love Affair" on the
History Channel with a friend who is also a researcher. Her only comment
when it was over was "So--he was having an affair." After that, one of
her daughters contacted Judyth.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
I have more of a problem with the claim that it was "60 Minutes" that
decided against the segment--they wanted to do it, but, as Don Hewitt put
it, "the door was slammed" on them. According to one "60 Minutes" source,
her then-agent wanted CBS to sign a contract to which they objected, so
that may have been the ultimate deal-breaker. Thanks for the warning,
Leyden, but I have the e-mail from the staffer. All I can say is that the
e-mail provided that information.
Leyden's position seems to be that the only relevant fact is that the
segment wasn't broadcast--how and why that happened is irrelevant. Of
course, in other messages, he wants to claim that it was because they
didn't believe her--something for which he has no evidence beyond his own
assumptions.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
I said her story was provable, and that the evidence is in the book.
A PART of her account is that she was working for Reily Company in the
summer of 1963--and paystubs and a W-2 form are part of the evidence
supporting that aspect of her account. For a while, some here tried to
deny that she worked for Reily--one poster went so far as to consult a
member of the Reily family, and tried to claim she never worked there,
though former Reily employees remembered her, and the documentation was
solid.
A PART of her account is that she had been doing cancer research for
several years prior to coming to New Orleans--a string of newspaper
articles documenting this is part of the evidence supporting that aspect
of her account. Posters here often claimed that a 19 year old COULDN'T
have been doing cancer research for several years--but, again, the
documentation is solid.
A "smoking gun" is a SINGLE piece of evidence that makes a case. For
example, a photo of Judyth and Lee in flagrante delicto would be a
smoking gun--we've never claimed the existence of such a photo. MOST
evidence involves a combination of things that cumulatively support a
conclusion.
You seem to object to "personal attacks" only when you are criticized.
Here you are re-hashing old newsgroup claims that Judyth read the
literature (I found that she knew almost nothing of the literature--she
eventually found out about the Haslam book, for example, from me). To
describe the body of evidence as "stories" is simply uninformed.
In 1999, Judyth told me her basic account and shared some of her
evidence. I didn't provide her with a thing until I was convinced in my
own mind that she was credible.
Your statement that "we researched all available materials" is nonsense.
Judyth's account was, in all basics, in its present form before I was
ever involved. Her professor, who saw her original letters to her son,
confirmed that the elements were present there--those weren't intended
to be seen by anyone but her son.
Neither I nor Howard Platzman, nor anyone else to my knowledge,
"injected" Judyth into anything. If you make a charge like that, you had
better be able to back it up.
I said you seemed to have been "born yesterday" AS FAR AS THIS NEWSGROUP
WAS CONCERNED simply because you seemed unaware of things which had been
frequently dicussed here.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
You are making unwarranted assumptions about the documentation in a book
you haven't seen.
You are making unwarranted allegations about how the book came about.
You make the flat statement that I consider statements that Judyth makes
as evidence. Based on the evidence I've seen, and the supporting witness
statements, I find her a credible witness, but I still don't take every
word she says as gospel--I always ask for the evidence. I've done that
from the beginning. She is most credible on things she personally
experienced. When you focus in on specifics, she can elaborate without
hesitation. I've talked with a lot of liars--they can't keep their
stories straight. She doesn't have a problem with that, as far as what
she experienced herself.
You say you want something more--the book provides hundreds of pieces of
evidence, and multiple witnesses confirm elements of her account. No one
is telling you to rely on her word alone. To say that I "can't provide
it" only shows that you are again commenting on a book about which you
know nothing.
The "300 illustrations" are mostly reproductions of evidence--that stuff
you said you wanted.
You claim that the source notes refer simply to "other previous work,"
which again shows you don't know what you're talking about.
It's also not true that we have to simply take her word that she didn't
read JFK books before she wrote the original letters to her son. I have
talked with her son, corresponded with her daughters, talked with her
sister and a longtime friend--prior to 1998, there were NO JFK books at
her home, and she tended to avoid the subject altogether. She mentioned
the affair to her sister in 1964, to her best friend in 1980, and
alluded to it to her son around the same time.
Since it is her critics who are making the claim that she thoroughly
studied the literature and "inserted herself" into it, it would seem
that THEY would the ones who need to cough up some evidence for their
claims. All they have to date is opinions based on nothing.
So, it is "your opinion" that her book would have been published in 1999
if we hadn't needed six years to do additional research to "invent" it.
You have no evidence of that--and you have both her son and her former
professor who read the letters she wrote in 1998. Neither back you up.
In other words, the only people in a position to know the truth say that
you got it wrong.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
illustrations were too pixillated to clearly read. I challenged that.
Going through the entire text, you could come up with only 16 examples--in
itself far from "many"--but less than half of them fit the description you
originally claimed.
Now you said that you "provided examples" (which didn't support your
original claim), and that I "denied" them. That simply isn't true, Chad. I
acknowledged that you accurately described a few of them, but pointed out
that you misrepresented the rest.
So much for "case closed," but thanks for the "Typical Shackelford," as it
is typical for me to ask for more than vague claims.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
I'll save others the trouble of trying to figure out which website
you're talking about, as you can't even seem to get that out
clearly--it's Ken Rahn's site with photos of various posters:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Photo_shows/Shackelford/Shackelford.html
The photo was taken by Joe Riehl, Judyth's former professor. Everyone
got close together so we would all fit into the picture. Your
description of the photo is ridiculous. For one thing, Judyth and Anna
are the only ones NOT smiling in the photo. They have never really
gotten along.
A picture is only worth a thousand words if it's not misrepresented by a
determined propagandist.
Martin
Chad Zimmerman
> You made the vague claim that "many" of the book's more than 300
> illustrations were too pixillated to clearly read. I challenged that.
Is the word 'many' specifically defined by a percentage or number? No.
Subjective.
>
> Going through the entire text, you could come up with only 16 examples
That's not accurate. I did not go through the entire text. I went through a
portion of
the first volume. Be accurate.
--in
> itself far from "many"--but less than half of them fit the description you
> originally claimed.
Subjective comment derived from your own personal definition of the word
'many'.
>
> Now you said that you "provided examples" (which didn't support your
> original claim),
Based upon your subjective assessment. Mine was different.
and that I "denied" them. That simply isn't true, Chad. I
> acknowledged that you accurately described a few of them, but pointed out
> that you misrepresented the rest.
I didn't. I gave my honest opinion. I wouldn't make that stuff up, Martin.
My view
is that they were inadequate, pixelated or generally poor images. You
disagreed, based
on subjective opinion, but claim that I misrepresented them. I represented
them in accordance
with my honest opinion regarding them.
>
> So much for "case closed," but thanks for the "Typical Shackelford," as it
> is typical for me to ask for more than vague claims.
Hehe. Tell me, Martin. What was it that convinced you that she hadn't
researched
a thing until 1999?
Chad
steve
all you have is judiths word dude, and her story changed, more than
once, anyone who reads this newsgroup and the links on it will know that,
they would also know that you said you would discuss the evidence when the
book was out, now its i'll discuss the evidence with anyone who reads the
book! where have YOU been? "born yesterday"? how do we know she didnt read
anything about the killing?? simple she and some family members say so,
wow what great evidence. funny thing is, after saying she didnt read
anything, you claim you gave her Haslam's book. mabey u didnt "inject"
judith into anything, you didnt have to, she did. "i had better be able to
back it up"? the burden of proof is on Judith, i'm not making outlandish
claims, she is and you are! Yall back it up. truth be told, there IS NO
EVIDENCE JUDITH WAS OSWALDS GIRLFRIEND. and if you call finding a few
yacks from new orleans good witnesses, i'll go find just as many who would
testify to just about anything.
Chad Zimmerman
book to this guy, movie rights, etc.?
He says he has 3 signed copies of that...is he lying?
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7q4so$i...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Chad Zimmerman
> As I said, you don't know much about the witnesses you're discussing.
>
> 1) I didn't know what to expect with Anna Lewis, but found her a very
> credible witness--and one who, despite disliking Judyth, and being offered
> the chance to retaliate against her by retracting her statement, responded
> by saying that she told the truth and she wasn't retracting a word. She
> was the wife of David Lewis, but was never questioned during the Garrison
> investigation, or any other for that matter. She worked as a waitress at
> Thompson's restaurant, and saw Lee and Judyth together there.
Yep, knew that, but didn't post it. Your claim is baseless.
> 2)Mac McCullough was the son of New Orleans restaurant owners. At various
> times, he was a musician, and a bouncer in one of the French Quarter
> clubs. He saw Lee and Judyth together in the French Quarter, and in
> Lafayette Park, a block or so from Reily's, and across the street from
> Banister's office.
So, he wasn't a musician for the mob? Judyth says he was.
> 3) Michael Riconosciuto isn't someone on whom I rely heavily, but he did
> seem to know some things about what was happening that summer in New
> Orleans that he couldn't have gotten from anything published. His comments
> came to us from another researcher.
And he is a felon, just like I said.
> 4) William Findley was a prisoner at Angola who recalled the relationship
> the prison had with the state hospital for medical experiments.
Yep, a felon.
> 5) There has been a lot of loose talk about Ed Haslam's book and Judyth's
> account being virtually carbon copies--anyone who has read both books will
> recognize that isn't the case. Ed was kind enough to tell us about the
> unpublished interview in his files with Ferrie's neighbor.
The books dovetail and she promotes his book within hers. What I said was
a direct quote from her.
>
> 6) Apparently the footnote didn't mention Adrian Alba, owner of the
> Crescent City Garage next door to Reily, who was questioned by an
> investigator hired by a Canadian researcher who wanted to see if Judyth's
> account was credible. Alba picked out a picture of Judyth from a photo
> array of early '60s women about the same age--and identified her as
> someone he had seen with Oswald.
Whew! Finally some great proof of the relationship!
> 7) The same investigator also questioned several Reily employees, all of
> whom recalled Judyth, but none of whom recalled Oswald working there that
> summer. Of course, Judyth worked in an office where all of the employees
> would have seen her when they signed in and out each day--and in 1963, she
> was quite a looker.
Great, more evidence that she worked at Reily, zero that she actually was
involved with Lee.
>
> 8) There was also Howard Liebengood, aide to Sen. Howard Baker during the
> intelligence committee investigations of the 1970s, who examined Judyth's
> evidence, and reported to us that her account was consistent with
> classified materials he had examined at the C.I.A. He became a consultant
> for "60 Minutes," and when he saw the farce of a "psychiatrist's report,"
> read it to us over the phone, and told us that no one there was taking it
> seriously. "60 Minutes" continued planning a Judyth segment for some time
> after that, which would seem to confirm that.
Great! Circumstantial proof that something was going on. I see he's not
mentioned in the index. Of course, others in the book didn't make it that
far either.
>
> 9) We were also told by a relative of Carlos Marcello that everyone in the
> Marcello circle knew about Lee and Judyth's affair. The relative had heard
> about it in that circle well before Judyth surfaced in 1999.
Name please.
>
> 10) And then there is Marina Oswald, who viewed "The Love Affair" on the
> History Channel with a friend who is also a researcher. Her only comment
> when it was over was "So--he was having an affair." After that, one of her
> daughters contacted Judyth.
Marina bought it? She also bought the two Oswald fiasco and had his body
exhumed...just to mention a couple of the wonderous things that Marina has
believed over the years.
Chad
JLeyd...@aol.com
anyone smiling either. And it was a tactical error to include Anna Lewis
in the photo. Makes a prima facie case for witness tampering. But thanks
for including the photo link. People need to see Team Judyth up close and
personal.
JGL
Anthony Marsh
> Martin,
>
> How the hell can anyone stop the sales of the book? That usually happens on
> the grounds that someone will sue for libel. Is that what you're suggesting
> to us?
>
How the Hell can the CIA stop the sale of a book or publication of an
article? See Bradlee.
> Chad
>
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:e7nulj$i...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>> You know nothing about it, Chad.
>> An attempt was made to block sales of the book. That's a fact, reported to
>> us by Trafford.
>> Stick to what you know--skip what you "think" you know.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> Dr. Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>>
Chad Zimmerman
Is this how it went:
Martin says, "Judyth, have you done any research on this stuff?"
Judyth replies, "Nope."
Martin says, "'Nuff said."
I think the key here is that you are convinced that she didn't research
anything, but nobody can really say she did or didn't- only Judyth knows
for sure.
Is that a fair assessment?
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7q9l4$8...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Martin Shackelford
except for the page numbers, which indicated a LARGE portion of the
first volume--and the first volume is most of the book.
As for your quibbling about "many," I'll leave that one alone.
Subjective? Some of your "examples" bore NO RESEMBLANCE to your original
characterization of "many" illustrations.
Having failed to provide supporting evidence, you now seem determined to
redefine terms to support your claims. Good luck with that.
Why didn't I think she had researched the JFK case before 1999?
1) She didn't have even the most basic knowledge of books on the case,
didn't recognize authors' names, etc.
2) Her children and sister confirmed that she had NOTHING about the case
in her home until she picked up a copy of Marina and Lee in 1998--and
was so irritated with the book that she wrote up her experiences in
letters to her son. Orignally, that was going to be the end of it.
Martin Shackelford
those too inconvenient to mention, steve?
Claims on this newsgroup that "her story changed" are not evidence, and
are not accurate.
I said I would DISCUSS the evidence. I didn't say I would post it.
If she read ANYTHING about the JFK case before 1998, it would be news to
her family. Are you calling her sister, her son and two daughters all
liars?
I didn't GIVE her Haslam's book. I MENTIONED it to her--after I had
gotten her account and basic documentation. Are you trying to start
another Team McAdams factoid?
You do seem to be calling the witnesses liars. Again without evidence.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
of the three alleged documents. Frankly, I wouldn't believe a word he
said with something better.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
1) I didn't say there was anyone's arm around me--so to point out this
detail is irrelevant, as usual for you.
2) Both Howard Platzman and I are smiling. Not sure what you gain by
pretending not to notice.
3) The photo was taken as a souvenier. To claim it as "a prima facie
case for witness tampering" is really idiotic. As usual, you begin with
your biases, and measure everything according to that grid.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
fantasies, but no, that's not how it went.
I periodically dropped references to researchers or issues into
e-mails--she had no clue what I was talking about. It's not all that
difficult to tell when someone doesn't know the literature. Later, every
time she ran across something "new" (often quite old), she got very
excited. The stuff she got excited about further made it clear that she
didn't know the literature.
I learned from her sister, son and daughters, as well as a friend of
hers, that she had NOTHING about the JFK case at her home before
1998--then she had Marina and Lee, and nothing else, until late in 1999.
I would have to say that you seem to me incapable of making a fair
assessment--so, no, you again haven't made one.
Martin
Chad Zimmerman
With all the theories that implicate the federal government and its agencies
that have been published, do you think this is the one that 'is it'?
Otherwise, why on earth would they stop this one and not the plethora of
others?
Chad
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:KIydnSInn8do4zzZ...@comcast.com...
Anthony Marsh
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:e7q6rf$k...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>> As I said, you don't know much about the witnesses you're discussing.
>>
>> 1) I didn't know what to expect with Anna Lewis, but found her a very
>> credible witness--and one who, despite disliking Judyth, and being offered
>> the chance to retaliate against her by retracting her statement, responded
>> by saying that she told the truth and she wasn't retracting a word. She
>> was the wife of David Lewis, but was never questioned during the Garrison
>> investigation, or any other for that matter. She worked as a waitress at
>> Thompson's restaurant, and saw Lee and Judyth together there.
>
> Yep, knew that, but didn't post it. Your claim is baseless.
>
>> 2)Mac McCullough was the son of New Orleans restaurant owners. At various
>> times, he was a musician, and a bouncer in one of the French Quarter
>> clubs. He saw Lee and Judyth together in the French Quarter, and in
>> Lafayette Park, a block or so from Reily's, and across the street from
>> Banister's office.
>
> So, he wasn't a musician for the mob? Judyth says he was.
>
Was Frank Sinatra a musician for the mob? Most people do not phrase it
that way.
Martin Shackelford
evidence to support it.
I say "he's a musician," and you respond "so he wasn't a musician for
the mob?". You're not reading carefully, Chad.
As for Riconosciuto, apparently felons are automatically not telling the
truth about anything. Interesting position, Chad.
A former prisoner, in position to know about a prison-connected medical
program, is dismissed as--yes--"a felon." Is he, then, underqualified or
overqualified to report what was happening at the prison?
You haven't made a serious comparison of Haslam and Judyth's accounts,
or you wouldn't make such foolish statements as "they dovetail." In some
respects, they overlap.
You seem to have adopted McAdams' tactic of pointing out that evidence
that supports one thing doesn't support another thing--when no one has
claimed it supported the other thing.
You make a big deal about what is or isn't in the index. Unfortunately
the index is incomplete.
The Marcello relative has asked us not to publicize their name.
Leyden jumps all over me by misrepresenting efforts to contact
Marina--and you play the other part of the team, dismissing her if she
says anything supportive of Judyth. The usual win-win nonsense.
Martin
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>> news:e7q6rf$k...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>> As I said, you don't know much about the witnesses you're discussing.
>>>
>>> 1) I didn't know what to expect with Anna Lewis, but found her a very
>>> credible witness--and one who, despite disliking Judyth, and being
>>> offered the chance to retaliate against her by retracting her statement,
>>> responded by saying that she told the truth and she wasn't retracting a
>>> word. She was the wife of David Lewis, but was never questioned during
>>> the Garrison investigation, or any other for that matter. She worked as
>>> a waitress at Thompson's restaurant, and saw Lee and Judyth together
>>> there.
>>
>> Yep, knew that, but didn't post it. Your claim is baseless.
>>
>>> 2)Mac McCullough was the son of New Orleans restaurant owners. At
>>> various times, he was a musician, and a bouncer in one of the French
>>> Quarter clubs. He saw Lee and Judyth together in the French Quarter, and
>>> in Lafayette Park, a block or so from Reily's, and across the street
>>> from Banister's office.
>>
>> So, he wasn't a musician for the mob? Judyth says he was.
>>
>
> Was Frank Sinatra a musician for the mob? Most people do not phrase it
> that way.
Yes, he was.
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
> You and McAdams love to dismiss things as "baseless" without any evidence
> to support it.
Bull. I repeated, in essence, exactly what Judyth wrote in the source
notes and you tried to dispel it by saying I don't know anything about the
witnesses, but everything I wrote was part of the source notes in the back
of the book.
> I say "he's a musician," and you respond "so he wasn't a musician for the
> mob?". You're not reading carefully, Chad.
Yeah, I did. Does it or does it not say that he was a musician for the
mob...amongst other things?
> As for Riconosciuto, apparently felons are automatically not telling the
> truth about anything. Interesting position, Chad.
That must mean that Files is telling the truth!
> A former prisoner, in position to know about a prison-connected medical
> program, is dismissed as--yes--"a felon." Is he, then, underqualified or
> overqualified to report what was happening at the prison?
Who knows, what exactly did he say?
> You haven't made a serious comparison of Haslam and Judyth's accounts, or
> you wouldn't make such foolish statements as "they dovetail." In some
> respects, they overlap.
Okay, they dovetail in some respects. That means that they fit together,
right?
> You seem to have adopted McAdams' tactic of pointing out that evidence
> that supports one thing doesn't support another thing--when no one has
> claimed it supported the other thing.
Martin, you seem to misunderstand what I've written. I repeated what you
guys put in the source notes, now your upset.
> You make a big deal about what is or isn't in the index.
A big deal? No. I mentioned it. It was a far cry from a big deal, but nice
try.
Unfortunately
> the index is incomplete.
To be redundant, I noticed.
> The Marcello relative has asked us not to publicize their name.
So all the proof isn't really in the book.
> Leyden jumps all over me by misrepresenting efforts to contact Marina--and
> you play the other part of the team, dismissing her if she says anything
> supportive of Judyth. The usual win-win nonsense.
You are the smart one that used her as a corroborating witness, and I
pointed out that she obviously has reality issues. She is also the same
woman that gave credence to Ron Lewis' book, isn't she? Does that make
Lewis' book the real deal?
Hey, your the guy that brought her up as supportive, not I. Get your facts
straight.
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
>I know how much you guys like to make things up to suit your own fantasies,
>but no, that's not how it went.
Martin, that's why I asked.
> I periodically dropped references to researchers or issues into
> e-mails--she had no clue what I was talking about.
Oooh, that's conclusive! Is it possible that she wanted you to believe she
didn't know?
It's not all that
> difficult to tell when someone doesn't know the literature.
Yeah, they say they don't know it.
Later, every
> time she ran across something "new" (often quite old), she got very
> excited.
No kidding, just like someone that is pretending to not know something
should act.
The stuff she got excited about further made it clear that she
> didn't know the literature.
So, getting excited about stuff proves two things...er...only one thing-
she didn't know anything because she was excited.
> I learned from her sister, son and daughters, as well as a friend of hers,
> that she had NOTHING about the JFK case at her home before 1998--then she
> had Marina and Lee, and nothing else, until late in 1999.
Oh, so things in the house...okay.
> I would have to say that you seem to me incapable of making a fair
> assessment--so, no, you again haven't made one.
Actually, I have. She told you she didn't know anything, got excited about
things, and didn't have anything in her home. Nuff said...I guess.
Chad
Martin Shackelford
one instance, was I convinced by a lie, and followup investigation
exposed that one, too. I'm not an amateur at this, Chad.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
must be. Please limit yourself to serious questions.
You don't seem to know the difference between dovetailing overlapping.
I see that you have your own reality issues.
Martin
paul seaton
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7vt87$i...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> I spent 25 years dealing with people who were adept at lying--in only
> one instance, was I convinced by a lie, and followup investigation
> exposed that one, too.
How do you know it was only the once Martin ?
--
Paul Seaton
Anthony Marsh
> You and McAdams love to dismiss things as "baseless" without any
> evidence to support it.
> I say "he's a musician," and you respond "so he wasn't a musician for
> the mob?". You're not reading carefully, Chad.
> As for Riconosciuto, apparently felons are automatically not telling the
> truth about anything. Interesting position, Chad.
> A former prisoner, in position to know about a prison-connected medical
> program, is dismissed as--yes--"a felon." Is he, then, underqualified or
> overqualified to report what was happening at the prison?
His attitude is exactly what the CIA counted on to dimiss stories from
the inmates and patients they used in their experiments.
Anthony Marsh
> Tony,
>
> With all the theories that implicate the federal government and its agencies
> that have been published, do you think this is the one that 'is it'?
> Otherwise, why on earth would they stop this one and not the plethora of
> others?
>
Which theory? You mean Judyth's? No, I do not think this is the one that
"is it." If you'd read any of my previous messages, you'd see that I think
IT was a rogue CIA operation.
I did not say that the CIA was behind the effort to squash her book. Other
forces can be just as governmental and cover-up yet not be CIA. CIA
encourages the plethora of others to allow people like you to ridicule the
whole research community.
Chad Zimmerman
Would your confidence in the book be shaken IF something of detail were
demonstrably proven to be a falsehood?
For instance, if Marsh is correct and the photo doesn't actually show Lee
with a missing tooth, but that it is an illusion cast on a poor
reproduction of the photo and/or the camera angle.
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7vt87$i...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Chad Zimmerman
> Interesting theory, Chad--if one felon is telling the truth, they all must
> be.
Nope, you missed the point. I mentioned one guy and you turned it into all
felons.
Please limit yourself to serious questions.
> You don't seem to know the difference between dovetailing overlapping.
> I see that you have your own reality issues.
Dovetails fit nicely together. Elements of Judyth's book fit nicely with
Haslam's. Thus, as I said, there are dovetailed elements in their stories.
Once again, this appears to be a subjective disagreement based upon the
usage of certain words- hairsplitting.
Chad
Martin Shackelford
you might think when you do it a lot.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
assume that her entire account should be thrown out? Dumb question, Chad.
Martin
Chad Zimmerman
quash it?
It doesn't make sense and only points to paranoia.
Chad
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Hu6dnQQ488iXkznZ...@comcast.com...
Chad Zimmerman
> You mean if she was shown not to be recalling things perfectly, would I
> assume that her entire account should be thrown out? Dumb question, Chad.
Way to twist that, Martin.
If there were significant details that she explains at length that were
prove to be demonstrably
false, would that alter your opinion? I'm not talking about misconstruing
minute details, but actually
going into significant length about something that is shown to be impossible
or untrue.
For instance, and keep in mind that this is totally hypothetical:
If the green glass were proven, beyond any doubt, to have been manufactured
in 1965, would that
disrupt your confidence in Judyth's integrity? Keep in mind I am only using
this as a completely hypothetical
scenario.
Chad
tomnln
in that fight?
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:44a4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> Wasn't there Testimony by a classmate that Oswald did indeed loose a tooth
> in that fight?
>
>
Silly. Do not rely on stories.
Anthony Marsh
> Again, if this is not 'it', then why would ANY governmental agency try to
> quash it?
>
It does not have to be "it" for governmental agencies to quash
something. Using that reasoning you'd prove that the books the CIA was
trying to quash must reveal the absolute truth or else why would they
bother attacking them.
> It doesn't make sense and only points to paranoia.
>
You don't make any sense. And we note your continual WC defender trick
of ascribing paranoia to any conspiracy believer. So much for serious
debate.
Anthony Marsh
> Hypothetical:
>
> Would your confidence in the book be shaken IF something of detail were
> demonstrably proven to be a falsehood?
>
No, such errors do not shake the confidence of the WC defenders in
Posner and Sturdivan. Show me any book which does not have at least one
error.