Should We Believe Judyth?
John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>
<Quote on>
But, according to Judyth, her life was interesting all they way back
to childhood. Judyth told Prof. Luis Urrea that as a child she was a
close friend of Dr. Seuss, and used the word "nerd" (which she had
invented) in his presence. He liked it, and used it in one of his
books, making it a common word in the language. (Source: E-mail to
the author from Luis Urrea dated September 7, 2003.)
<Quote off>
.John
--
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>
A tidbit from the essay above:
<Quote on>
One set of plotters who were not Garrison suspects were the mobsters.
The Orleans Parish district attorney quite conspicuously ignored the
Mafia in this “investigation.” Judyth remedies this defect by adding
them to the mix. But she also provides an explanation for his steering
clear of the mob. Garrison, Judyth explains, carried on a sexual
relationship with a hermaphrodite stripper named Sandra Sexton and was
“compromised” since the Marcello organization knew about it. (Source:
E-mail to the author from Louis Girdler dated September 5, 2003.)
<Quote off>
.John
--
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>
A tidbit from this essay:
<Quote on>
Judyth has been willing to engage in some chicanery to support her
claims about her dogs. On one occasion she and several other students
were in the home of Professor Urrea, for an informal seminar meeting.
Judyth profusely praised the American Cream dog she had brought along,
touting the breed’s intelligence. As the seminar progressed the dog
was on the floor next to her, and she surreptitiously reached down and
unfastened the dog's collar. As the dog bounded free, she enthused
over how smart it was to escape the collar. But both Urrea's wife and
Urrea himself observed her releasing the dog. (Source: E-mail to the
author from Luis Urrea dated September 7, 2003.)
<Quote off>
.John
--
Martin Shackelford
possible publication of a book that they launched a pre-emptive strike
against it. The only parallel that comes to mind is Harold Weisberg's
pre-emptive attack on the movie "JFK."
In this case, the "Judyth" page of John McAdams' website, is clearly a
most one-sided project, as one can see from the last item:
Acknowledgments – Thanks to the following people who have provided
helpful information and critical comments on various drafts of this
essay: Joe Biles, Robert Chapman, Dennis Frank, Louis Girdler, Paul
Hoch, Robert Johnson, John Leyden, David Lifton, Dave Reitzes, and Paul
Seaton.
It was also clearly a rush job, as the footnotes are full of typos. Most
of the non-footnoted "sources" are simply references to other pages on
McAdams' own website, some are other LN websites, and some are
references to the HSCA reports, ARRB testimony, or writings by his
collaborators listed in the above Acknowledgements. His "historical
information" regarding Cancun is sourced to a tourism website.
As for the footnotes, some are simply statements of McAdams' own
opinions, rather than an independent source. Some are e-mails from
individuals listed in the Acknowledgements, all long-time critics of
Judyth. He cites David Blackburst, Hugh Aynesworth, Gerald Posner,
Patricia Lambert, an e-mail from Judyth's ex-husband (who has repeatedly
proven to have a highly unreliable memory with regard to these matters),
Rose Baker (his current wife, whose only source was the erroneous
recollections of her husband), and the anonymous source "ihateliars."
Rich Della Rosa supplied posts from his newsgroup--and when something
damaging FROM Judyth couldn't be found, McAdams simply cite's Rich's own
posts as sources. He also uses as a source the notorious e-mail that
Mary Ferrell has denied writing, and the wildly unreliable 1999 Salon
column by Amy Reiter.
What is the "substance" of McAdams' "critique" of Judyth?
1) He admits that she was "an excellent science student," but notes that
Robert Johnson was able to find a classmate who has considered her
"weird" (big whoop!).
2) McAdams' own opinions make up a significant portion of the
"evidence"--the cancer project is "farfetched," this poli sci prof's
medical opinions about cancer, another element is "unlikely," something
else "appears to be" (a frequent phrase), another "must be derived
from," another is "difficult to understand," etc. David Lifton's opinion
(based on a single phone call) become "as David Lifton has pointed
out"--again, an opinion is cited as evidence.
3) He seeks to discredit Anna Lewis by reporting that she was offered a
share of proceeds from the book. He fails to mention that this didn't
even come up until AFTER she had been thoroughly interviewed and
videotaped, and THEN a conversation resulting in learning of some
financial difficulties. Judyth's concern for her is transformed by
McAdams into some sort of bribery attempt.
4) He cites as further "evidence" statements by Robert Harris, who got
one of Judyth's high school classmates mixed up with Anna Lewis, due to
a similarity in first names--and presents Robert's error as "proof" that
Anna Lewis didn't appear in "early versions" of Judyth's story. In fact,
she mentioned Anna BEFORE she communicated with Robert.
5) He also makes use of another Harris error--the assumption that
meetings after work left Marina "constantly alone at night," though
Judyth has always been clear that Lee went home each night to Marina.
6) McAdams assumes, as usual, that anything that hasn't been vomited
forth at his request doesn't, therefore, exist--that nothing is being
saved for the book that he doesn't know about. He is, as usual,
incorrect in this assumption.
7) He has made much of the fact that she didn't mention Lee's writing in
early e-mails. She had 40 boxes of materials, and at that point she
didn't know whether the writing was there or had been thrown out. Once
she located it, she mentioned it. She didn't want to cite evidence she
wasn't sure she still had.
8) He accepts Robert Baker's account of how she got the Reily job,
though he was on a boat in the Gulf of Mexico at the time, and his
account is contradicted by the documentary evidence. He also accepts
that Baker remember's Judyth's exact words in talking about Lee Oswald
at the time of the assassination--despite Baker's repeated errors of
memory on even general items.
9) He accepts the opinions of some of her classmates on the quality of
her high school cancer research--no clue as to whether they have even
the slightest qualifications to evaluate it.
10) He attributes mention of Dr. Alton Ochsner as left-leaning "reverse
McCarthyism"--he must have been named simply because he was
anti-communist. This begs the question: Why him? New Orleans was FULL of
anti-communists. And McAdams suggests that because he was "a
humanitarian," he couldn't have been involved in an anti-Castro
plot--perhaps his silliest argument yet.
11) Was Guy Banister involved with the CIA? McAdams tells us that the
CIA says no--who could doubt them?
12) Judyth referred to a group of documents as a sort of informal
"manual," and sometimes referred in shorthand to them as an "MK/ULTRA
Manual." Louis Girdler took her literally, and McAdams cites his error
as a source.
13) The only source on whether Ruby was called "Sparky" turns out to be
Hugh Aynesworth.
14) Anything that appears anywhere in the literature or on the Internet
is assumed to have been the basis for its appearance in Judyth's
account. This serves McAdams in two ways: he can dismiss anything for
which evidence can't be found, and he can dismiss anything for which
evidence CAN be found by saying she got it second-hand from that source.
He portrays a Judyth who has a far greater grasp of assassination
literature and documentation that any researcher I've encountered--not
at all the Judyth I know, who is very much a novice in that regard.
15) He claims that, with regard to Garrison's claims, Judyth "embraces
it wholeheartedly", which is simply not true--in fact, very MUCH not
true. Later, he himself cites some of the differences between Garrison's
claims and Judyth's account.
16) He cites various factual errors that she has made regarding
information that would not have come from her personal knowledge--not at
all surprising. He tries, however, to use this to discredit her own
recollections, as though there was no difference between the two.
17) Referring to an uncorrected outline he has obtained, he attributes
every statement to Judyth, though some are characterizations by Howard
Platzman--and some of those were later corrected. The same is true of an
uncorrected "draft chapter" on which he relies heavily.
18) As in his win-win approach to evidence, McAdams considers any
mention of a name already in the literature as "evidence" of Judyth's
unreliability. To get the point across, he includes names which are only
casually mentioned, and implies that they are relevant to her
account--another misleading effort. One name, for example, is Herbert
Philbrick--whom Judyth has never claimed as part of her account. McAdams
is in such a rush to create a list that he provides no real evidence
that Judyth refers significantly to many of them. Citing Richard Case
Nagell, he assumes she is referring to Nagell when she only had a vague
recollection of a "Nagy or Nagell." Many researchers will recognized the
name Nagy as well, so it's hardly a given that she heard "Nagell."
19) Again in lieu of evidence, McAdams cites Rich Della Rosa's
characterization of her as a "Forrest Gump" of the assassination, and
continues to cite "the Paul Hoch ratio test" as though it were a law of
science--though in the paper McAdams cites, Hoch says "I suspect" that
it might be "a useful measure." Not only does McAdams elevate it to
certainty, but he goes on to refer to "a corollary" of the "test." This
is all mumbo-jumbo of the rankest sort.
20) Once again, McAdams makes much of a reference to "Cancun" written by
Judyth's original agent, and not yet removed from the ancient chapter
draft leaked to him after it was surreptitiously copied. He also again
assumes that David Lifton can tell the difference between "Cancun" and
"Kankun" (the village that existed in 1963) in a phone call.
21) He makes much of her dog breeding, apparently considering himself an
expert on the subject, offers one anecdote, and then just quotes her
without providing any evidence that what she's saying isn't accurate.
22) In his section on Mormonism, he seems to assume that Mormons would
be reading books attacking Mormonism, and thus Judyth obtained her
information from such books while she was a Mormon.
23) He makes his usual silly references to "Team Judyth," and proceeds
to speak with authority regarding what Howard Platzman and I have and
haven't done--a subject about which he knows next to nothing. He falsely
states that certain information has never been verified. He refers to us
as working on "the big score," which is a gross misrepresentation of
our activities. He also repeats his own mythical characterization of the
Dallas conference incident as though it were established fact.
24) He ridicules her account of the "green glass," noting that she said
her daughter threw out a note that was in the glass. Her daughter, in
fact, recallrf the incident, and how upset her mother was that she had
thrown out the note--odd, if it was just an old "receipt," as McAdams
suggests it was.
25) She was known in New Orleans as Judyth Vary, and later used her
married name Judyth Baker--as well as a pen name in some writings--but
McAdams assumes that any visibility at all under the latter two names
disproves any idea that she was "in hiding." Of course, she has never
claimed she was "in hiding" during those years--just that she was
avoiding any indication of association with Oswald.
26) He admits that her first agent was "shopping around" her manuscript
by April 1999, and yet expects us to believe that she has made
significant changes in her account since that time--as though no one
would notice who had seen the original manuscript.
27) He repeats the false claim that "Most of the people with whom she
has shared her story have come away skeptical"--in fact, he doesn't
really know with whom she has shared it, and so has no definite group on
which to base a claim of "most." This is more mumbo-jumbo.
In short, McAdams' "critique" is a mixture of re-hashed claims, his own
opinions, material from his own website, incestuous exchanges of opinion
with his fellow Judyth-haters, quotes from uncorrrected drafts, and
misrepresentations of her own account. McAdams could have waited for the
definitive account--but then it might get published before he could
stage his pre-emptive strike.
Martin
W. Tracy Parnell
W. Tracy Parnell
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:3f60f7b...@news.alt.net...
John McAdams
>
> I'm trying to remember the last time someone was SO worried about the
> possible publication of a book that they launched a pre-emptive strike
> against it. The only parallel that comes to mind is Harold Weisberg's
> pre-emptive attack on the movie "JFK."
OIC. You think that Weisberg should have *concealed* the nature of what
Stone was doing.
You don't think he should have leaked the shooting script to the
WASHINGTON POST.
Do you object to Daniel Ellsberg having leaked the Pentagon Papers?
> In this case, the "Judyth" page of John McAdams' website, is clearly a
> most one-sided project, as one can see from the last item:
>
> Acknowledgments – Thanks to the following people who have provided
> helpful information and critical comments on various drafts of this
> essay: Joe Biles, Robert Chapman, Dennis Frank, Louis Girdler, Paul
> Hoch, Robert Johnson, John Leyden, David Lifton, Dave Reitzes, and Paul
> Seaton.
>
These are all evil people?
Martin, there is quite a long list of people who have listened to
Judyth's story and come away convinced she is telling tall tales. The
fact that there are so many, and that they care enough to help me out in
this project speaks volumes.
> It was also clearly a rush job, as the footnotes are full of typos.
Actually, no. The fact that a bunch of words run together is a
WordPerfect => HTML export issue. This will be fixed soon enough.
> Most
> of the non-footnoted "sources" are simply references to other pages on
> McAdams' own website, some are other LN websites, and some are
> references to the HSCA reports, ARRB testimony, or writings by his
> collaborators listed in the above Acknowledgements.
And none of those sources is reliable, eh?
All of them contradict Judyth, eh?
People can go to the pages cited and see the primary source citations in
detail.
> His "historical
> information" regarding Cancun is sourced to a tourism website.
>
Since Cancun is a huge tourist destination, this makes good sense, does
it not?
> As for the footnotes, some are simply statements of McAdams' own
> opinions, rather than an independent source. Some are e-mails from
> individuals listed in the Acknowledgements, all long-time critics of
> Judyth. He cites David Blackburst,
I cite him on David Ferrie, since Blackburst is *the* expert on Ferrie.
> Hugh Aynesworth,
A reporter from the DALLAS MORNING NEWS in 1963, who knew Ruby, I cite
to the effect that nobody called Ruby "Sparky" -- at least not to his
face.
I also cite Ruby's sister as telling the WC the same thing.
But I suppose *they* are unreliable, and Judyth is reliable!
> Gerald Posner,
I cite him to the effect that Dutz Murret didn't much care for his
nephew in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.
Do you dispute that?
> Patricia Lambert,
I cite her to the effect that David Lewis told a lot of wacky stories to
the Garrison office.
Do you deny that?
> an e-mail from Judyth's ex-husband (who has repeatedly
> proven to have a highly unreliable memory with regard to these matters),
> Rose Baker (his current wife, whose only source was the erroneous
> recollections of her husband),
You have no reason for calling her account "erroneous" besides the fact
that it's inconvenient for Judyth.
If she isn't correct about the American Cream Dog being simply the
offspring of a mutt she brought back from Norway, where *did* the
"breed" come from?
> and the anonymous source "ihateliars."
Do you deny that what "ihateliars" (apparently Matt Allison) posted was
accurate?
> Rich Della Rosa supplied posts from his newsgroup--and when something
> damaging FROM Judyth couldn't be found, McAdams simply cite's Rich's own
> posts as sources.
Was Rich lying when he said that Judyth couldn't describe Roselli and
Ragano correctly?
> He also uses as a source the notorious e-mail that
> Mary Ferrell has denied writing,
I've supplied the e-mail headers. She wrote it, and she told Joe Biles
that she did.
> and the wildly unreliable 1999 Salon
> column by Amy Reiter.
>
I cite this for the fact that an agent was "shopping around" a
manuscript of Judyth's book.
Do you deny this?
> What is the "substance" of McAdams' "critique" of Judyth?
> 1) He admits that she was "an excellent science student," but notes that
> Robert Johnson was able to find a classmate who has considered her
> "weird" (big whoop!).
> 2) McAdams' own opinions make up a significant portion of the
> "evidence"--the cancer project is "farfetched," this poli sci prof's
> medical opinions about cancer,
No, the opinion of medical people, including a colleague in Marquette's
Biology Department.
> another element is "unlikely," something
> else "appears to be" (a frequent phrase), another "must be derived
> from," another is "difficult to understand," etc. David Lifton's opinion
> (based on a single phone call) become "as David Lifton has pointed
> out"--again, an opinion is cited as evidence.
Not "opinions." Conclusions. Based on a lot of evidence.
> 3) He seeks to discredit Anna Lewis by reporting that she was offered a
> share of proceeds from the book. He fails to mention that this didn't
> even come up until AFTER she had been thoroughly interviewed and
> videotaped, and THEN a conversation resulting in learning of some
> financial difficulties. Judyth's concern for her is transformed by
> McAdams into some sort of bribery attempt.
Can you supply evidence that it happened in this sequence?
Your buddy Platzman apparently didn't tell it this way to Louis Gridler.
> 4) He cites as further "evidence" statements by Robert Harris, who got
> one of Judyth's high school classmates mixed up with Anna Lewis, due to
> a similarity in first names--and presents Robert's error as "proof" that
> Anna Lewis didn't appear in "early versions" of Judyth's story. In fact,
> she mentioned Anna BEFORE she communicated with Robert.
So Harris is now mistaken too, eh?
Just how *many* people have to be "mistaken" in order for you to accept
Judyth's account?
Maybe Bob will jump in and tell he whether he have have been confused
about this.
> 5) He also makes use of another Harris error--the assumption that
> meetings after work left Marina "constantly alone at night," though
> Judyth has always been clear that Lee went home each night to Marina.
A "Harris error," eh?
> 6) McAdams assumes, as usual, that anything that hasn't been vomited
> forth at his request doesn't, therefore, exist--that nothing is being
> saved for the book that he doesn't know about. He is, as usual,
> incorrect in this assumption.
You people have often produced lists of the "evidence" you have.
"Deadly Alliance" contains such a list.
Judyth has sent out scores (and perhaps hundreds) of e-mail bragging
about the "evidence" she has.
So when some supposedly dandy piece of evidence isn't mentioned, and
then later pops up, it does create a lot of suspicion, doesn't it?
> 7) He has made much of the fact that she didn't mention Lee's writing in
> early e-mails. She had 40 boxes of materials, and at that point she
> didn't know whether the writing was there or had been thrown out. Once
> she located it, she mentioned it. She didn't want to cite evidence she
> wasn't sure she still had.
You mean she was writing a book, and that she and Platzman were
polishing "Deadly Alliance" to send out to publishers, and she didn't
bother to find the *one* type of evidence that would have actually made
people take her story seriously?
> 8) He accepts Robert Baker's account of how she got the Reily job,
> though he was on a boat in the Gulf of Mexico at the time, and his
> account is contradicted by the documentary evidence.
And how is this?
It won't do to say that she eventually worked a Reily's. You need to
prove that she never worked at the burger joint.
BTW, haven't you already admitted that she did?
> He also accepts
> that Baker remember's Judyth's exact words in talking about Lee Oswald
> at the time of the assassination--despite Baker's repeated errors of
> memory on even general items.
This from a fellow who supports Judyth -- who has entire paragraphs full
of "exact words!"
> 9) He accepts the opinions of some of her classmates on the quality of
> her high school cancer research--no clue as to whether they have even
> the slightest qualifications to evaluate it.
No, I accept her classmate's memory that her rats got loose, thereby
mixing up the experimental and control groups.
> 10) He attributes mention of Dr. Alton Ochsner as left-leaning "reverse
> McCarthyism"--he must have been named simply because he was
> anti-communist. This begs the question: Why him? New Orleans was FULL of
> anti-communists.
Because he was a medical guy, and Judyth has used Haslam as a major
source for her tale.
> And McAdams suggests that because he was "a
> humanitarian," he couldn't have been involved in an anti-Castro
> plot--perhaps his silliest argument yet.
I don't think he would have been involved in a plot to kill a hapless
mental patient.
You folks have painted a grotesque caricature of Ochsner, and it's hard
to believe the real Ochsner would take part in a plot against Kennedy.
> 11) Was Guy Banister involved with the CIA? McAdams tells us that the
> CIA says no--who could doubt them?
The CIA says "no" in Top Secret documents. You know, the kind you
always wanted released.
The kind you don't believe, now that they have been released, when they
don't show what you want them to.
> 12) Judyth referred to a group of documents as a sort of informal
> "manual," and sometimes referred in shorthand to them as an "MK/ULTRA
> Manual." Louis Girdler took her literally, and McAdams cites his error
> as a source.
Martin, the notion that the CIA would share a bunch of stuff on MK/ULTRA
with Ruby, or Judyth, or anybody else in New Orleans in 1963 is absurd.
You need to bone up on the concepts "closely held" and "need to know."
> 13) The only source on whether Ruby was called "Sparky" turns out to be
> Hugh Aynesworth.
And excellent source, but I also cited Ruby's sister.
> 14) Anything that appears anywhere in the literature or on the Internet
> is assumed to have been the basis for its appearance in Judyth's
> account. This serves McAdams in two ways: he can dismiss anything for
> which evidence can't be found, and he can dismiss anything for which
> evidence CAN be found by saying she got it second-hand from that source.
The problem is that she cites conspiracy factoids that are *contrary* to
the evidence.
The Minox "too sensitive" to need a light meter is an example.
> He portrays a Judyth who has a far greater grasp of assassination
> literature and documentation that any researcher I've encountered--not
> at all the Judyth I know, who is very much a novice in that regard.
False dichotomy. Judyth has assimiliated a lot of assassination
minutiae, like the Minox, the shower shoes, Greer slowing the limo, etc.
She doesn't have the comprehensive knowledge to avoid real boners.
> 15) He claims that, with regard to Garrison's claims, Judyth "embraces
> it wholeheartedly", which is simply not true--in fact, very MUCH not
> true.
I say that "While many conspiracists have rejected Jim Garrison’s 'case'
against Clay Shaw, Judyth embraces it wholeheartedly." And she does.
> Later, he himself cites some of the differences between Garrison's
> claims and Judyth's account.
Huh? I said she accepted the "case" against Shaw.
> 16) He cites various factual errors that she has made regarding
> information that would not have come from her personal knowledge--not at
> all surprising. He tries, however, to use this to discredit her own
> recollections, as though there was no difference between the two.
You are going to need to be specific here.
> 17) Referring to an uncorrected outline he has obtained, he attributes
> every statement to Judyth, though some are characterizations by Howard
> Platzman--and some of those were later corrected. The same is true of an
> uncorrected "draft chapter" on which he relies heavily.
Martin, I have three or four versions of the "uncorrected" outline, and
they all say pretty much the same thing.
How did it go through so many revisions without being "corrected?"
And how did it get sent out to so many people (including publishers)
without getting "corrected?"
I suppose when the book comes out you'll explain the boners in there as
"errors" that didn't get "corrected."
> 18) As in his win-win approach to evidence, McAdams considers any
> mention of a name already in the literature as "evidence" of Judyth's
> unreliability. To get the point across, he includes names which are only
> casually mentioned, and implies that they are relevant to her
> account--another misleading effort. One name, for example, is Herbert
> Philbrick--whom Judyth has never claimed as part of her account.
>From "Deadly Alliance:"
<Quote on>
Note: Lee later met the real Herbert Philbrick, who was a consultant to
Ochsner’s group, INCA. He found his boyhood hero unimpressive in the
flesh.
<Quote off>
> McAdams
> is in such a rush to create a list that he provides no real evidence
> that Judyth refers significantly to many of them.
Martin's being slippery in the use of "signifcantly." A lot of familiar
names are just thrown in without any organic connection to the account.
> Citing Richard Case
> Nagell, he assumes she is referring to Nagell when she only had a vague
> recollection of a "Nagy or Nagell." Many researchers will recognized the
> name Nagy as well, so it's hardly a given that she heard "Nagell."
She is still "spicing up" the account by throwning in names familiar to
readers of conspiracy books.
> 19) Again in lieu of evidence, McAdams cites Rich Della Rosa's
> characterization of her as a "Forrest Gump" of the assassination,
No, cites as a summary of what the evidence shows.
> and
> continues to cite "the Paul Hoch ratio test" as though it were a law of
> science--though in the paper McAdams cites, Hoch says "I suspect" that
> it might be "a useful measure." Not only does McAdams elevate it to
> certainty, but he goes on to refer to "a corollary" of the "test." This
> is all mumbo-jumbo of the rankest sort.
Martin, some accounts show the clear hallmarks of having been drawn from
conspiracy books, and not from life. Judyth's is one of these.
> 20) Once again, McAdams makes much of a reference to "Cancun" written by
> Judyth's original agent, and not yet removed from the ancient chapter
> draft leaked to him after it was surreptitiously copied.
Martin, the "ancient" (read: "unsanitized") draft shows clear evidence
of correction by Judyth, yet the "Cancun" business is there.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/endofline.pdf
> He also again
> assumes that David Lifton can tell the difference between "Cancun" and
> "Kankun" (the village that existed in 1963) in a phone call.
She wasn't referring to any "village" -- until she found out that the
famous tourist destination didn't exist in 1963.
> 21) He makes much of her dog breeding, apparently considering himself an
> expert on the subject, offers one anecdote,
You mean this one?
<Quote on>
Judyth has been willing to engage in some chicanery to support her
claims about her dogs. On one occasion she and several other students
were in the home of Professor Urrea, for an informal seminar meeting.
Judyth profusely praised the American Cream dog she had brought along,
touting the breed’s intelligence. As the seminar progressed the dog was
on the floor next to her, and she surreptitiously reached down and
unfastened the dog's collar. As the dog bounded free, she enthused over
how smart it was to escape the collar. But both Urrea's wife and Urrea
himself observed her releasing the dog.
(Source: E-mail to the author from Luis Urrea dated September 7, 2003.)
<Quote off>
Doesn't speak well for her credibility, does it?
> and then just quotes her
> without providing any evidence that what she's saying isn't accurate.
> 22) In his section on Mormonism, he seems to assume that Mormons would
> be reading books attacking Mormonism, and thus Judyth obtained her
> information from such books while she was a Mormon.
Martin, by the time she was a Mormon, the problems with the Book of
Abraham were well known AMONG MORMON SCHOLARS.
http://nowscape.com/mormon/papyrus/by_his_own_hand.htm
Not to say that they all accepted that the "translation" was bogus, but
any serious Mormon scholar (which Judyth claims to have been) would have
know about the questions.
> 23) He makes his usual silly references to "Team Judyth," and proceeds
> to speak with authority regarding what Howard Platzman and I have and
> haven't done--a subject about which he knows next to nothing. He falsely
> states that certain information has never been verified. He refers to us
> as working on "the big score," which is a gross misrepresentation of
> our activities.
Have you been trying to get a book contract?
> He also repeats his own mythical characterization of the
> Dallas conference incident as though it were established fact.
The e-mail of Platzman pleading earnestly with her not to go has been
posted right here.
> 24) He ridicules her account of the "green glass," noting that she said
> her daughter threw out a note that was in the glass. Her daughter, in
> fact, recallrf the incident, and how upset her mother was that she had
> thrown out the note--odd, if it was just an old "receipt," as McAdams
> suggests it was.
Who knows why she was upset, Martin?
It's just that all of Judyth's really *good* evidence has somehow
disappeared.
> 25) She was known in New Orleans as Judyth Vary, and later used her
> married name Judyth Baker--as well as a pen name in some writings--but
> McAdams assumes that any visibility at all under the latter two names
> disproves any idea that she was "in hiding." Of course, she has never
> claimed she was "in hiding" during those years--just that she was
> avoiding any indication of association with Oswald.
Martin, you mean the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy, with all their
resources, could not discover that "Judyth Vary" married Robert Baker?
BTW, do her employment papers at Reily show her as "Judyth Baker" or
"Judyth Vary?"
> 26) He admits that her first agent was "shopping around" her manuscript
> by April 1999, and yet expects us to believe that she has made
> significant changes in her account since that time--as though no one
> would notice who had seen the original manuscript.
Precisely. Most publishers aren't buffs. They look at what comes over
the transom. It's exceedingly doubtful that some editor, having
rejected the manuscript four or five years ago, will notice when the
book comes out, will read it, and will remember that she has changed a
lot of stuff around.
The blunder you made was to share the manuscript and outline with
researchers. They *are* buffs. They *do* remember what they were told
and notice when the story has been changed.
> 27) He repeats the false claim that "Most of the people with whom she
> has shared her story have come away skeptical"--in fact, he doesn't
> really know with whom she has shared it, and so has no definite group on
> which to base a claim of "most." This is more mumbo-jumbo.
>
Why don't you give us a lot of names beside Team Judyth who believe her?
> In short, McAdams' "critique" is a mixture of re-hashed claims, his own
> opinions, material from his own website, incestuous exchanges of opinion
> with his fellow Judyth-haters, quotes from uncorrrected drafts, and
> misrepresentations of her own account. McAdams could have waited for the
> definitive account--but then it might get published before he could
> stage his pre-emptive strike.
>
Hurts to have an extended critique all in one place, doesn't it Martin?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
Why should somebody conceal data about the Judyth account? You were
touting Judyth as a dandy "new witness" until you begin to get
questioned about her.
So it's alright for you to invoke her testimony, but wrong for others to
debunk her?
.John
John McAdams
wrote:
>As your new page makes clear, the answer to the question is-no. Well done!
>
>
Thanks, Tracy!
Kenneth A. Rahn
I found your summary of Judyth's claims to be revealing and persuasive.
But can't it be boiled down to one point and one subpoint? The point is that
she has no conclusive physical evidence for her story. The subpoint is that
lacking that, she has (likely) created a story and embellished it with
material from other sources. I say "likely" because, her errors aside, I
still see little to flatly contradict her story. Erring on the generous
side, I would consider it "not proved" rather than disproved. Are you aware
of any piece of evidence that absolutely rules out her story? I think that's
the first-level issue here.
Ken Rahn
John McAdams
wrote:
>John,
>
> I found your summary of Judyth's claims to be revealing and persuasive.
>But can't it be boiled down to one point and one subpoint?
Perhaps (see below). But I do think it's relevant that she has made
so *many* wild claims.
>The point is that
>she has no conclusive physical evidence for her story. The subpoint is that
>lacking that, she has (likely) created a story and embellished it with
>material from other sources. I say "likely" because, her errors aside, I
>still see little to flatly contradict her story. Erring on the generous
>side, I would consider it "not proved" rather than disproved.
But you can say the same thing about Beverly Oliver. It's impossible
to *disprove* that she was in Dealey Plaza, but given the wild stories
she told, there is no reason to accept her claim that she was.
>Are you aware
>of any piece of evidence that absolutely rules out her story? I think that's
>the first-level issue here.
>
I think the implausibility of the medical / bioweapons stuff is the
killer. That the CIA would hire a bunch of people with no expertise
in bioweapons -- with only Mary Sherman having any real scientific
expertise at all -- to handle an important bioweapons project is
bizarre. That they would have the research done in the *apartments*
of two of the "researchers" is bizarre.
And the notion that you can give somebody cancer by injecting cancer
cells -- a central part of her story -- is bizarre. So is the notion
that you would *need* to do anything else to somebody after you have
wiped out their immune system.
In one sense, nobody needs to read past that part of the essay.
Unless they are interested in hearing more of Judyth's nonsense. :-)
JLeyden900
>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>Date: 9/12/2003 7:05 AM Eastern
Shackelford is right: Someone does sound desperate. He must have sat up half
the night typing up this weak-kneed response which only serves to undercut
Judyth’s case even further. For example, he confirms that Team Judyth did
offer to pay off its star witness, Anna Lewis/Vincent, for her testimony
confirming the alleged Judyth-Oswald romance. What were they thinking? And
he’s still trying to explain away Judyth’s seminal Cancun gaffe, blaming
the original agent and claiming David Lifton simply misunderstood her reference
to "Kankun" in a phone call. Sure! And he has the nerve to challenge Bob
Baker’s recollections of Judyth when we all know he never got off his duff
and interviewed Bob Baker or Marina Oswald on the alleged torrid affair of
their spouses. What was he thinking? Of course, the answer to the question
posed by McAdams is no one who matters believes Judyth’s story. Team Judyth
has been trying to peddle her book for more than four years now without success
(Shack now talks about "possible publication") and three years now have passed
since CBS "60 Minutes" dumped this rag-tag crew out on the street concluding
that Judith (her own words now) "was just a story teller."
JGL
>'m trying to remember the last time someone was SO worried about the=20
>possible publication of a book that they launched a pre-emptive strike=20
>against it. The only parallel that comes to mind is Harold Weisberg's=20
>pre-emptive attack on the movie "JFK."
>In this case, the "Judyth" page of John McAdams' website, is clearly a=20
>most one-sided project, as one can see from the last item:
>
>Acknowledgments =96 Thanks to the following people who have provided=20
>helpful information and critical comments on various drafts of this=20
>essay: Joe Biles, Robert Chapman, Dennis Frank, Louis Girdler, Paul=20
>Hoch, Robert Johnson, John Leyden, David Lifton, Dave Reitzes, and Paul=20
>Seaton.
>
>It was also clearly a rush job, as the footnotes are full of typos. Most=20
>of the non-footnoted "sources" are simply references to other pages on=20
>McAdams' own website, some are other LN websites, and some are=20
>references to the HSCA reports, ARRB testimony, or writings by his=20
>collaborators listed in the above Acknowledgements. His "historical=20
>information" regarding Cancun is sourced to a tourism website.
>
>As for the footnotes, some are simply statements of McAdams' own=20
>opinions, rather than an independent source. Some are e-mails from=20
>individuals listed in the Acknowledgements, all long-time critics of=20
>Judyth. He cites David Blackburst, Hugh Aynesworth, Gerald Posner,=20
>Patricia Lambert, an e-mail from Judyth's ex-husband (who has repeatedly=20
>proven to have a highly unreliable memory with regard to these matters),=20
>Rose Baker (his current wife, whose only source was the erroneous=20
>recollections of her husband), and the anonymous source "ihateliars."=20
>Rich Della Rosa supplied posts from his newsgroup--and when something=20
>damaging FROM Judyth couldn't be found, McAdams simply cite's Rich's own=20
>posts as sources. He also uses as a source the notorious e-mail that=20
>Mary Ferrell has denied writing, and the wildly unreliable 1999 Salon=20
>column by Amy Reiter.
>
>What is the "substance" of McAdams' "critique" of Judyth?
>1) He admits that she was "an excellent science student," but notes that=20
>Robert Johnson was able to find a classmate who has considered her=20
>"weird" (big whoop!).
>2) McAdams' own opinions make up a significant portion of the=20
>"evidence"--the cancer project is "farfetched," this poli sci prof's=20
>medical opinions about cancer, another element is "unlikely," something=20
>else "appears to be" (a frequent phrase), another "must be derived=20
>from," another is "difficult to understand," etc. David Lifton's opinion=20
>(based on a single phone call) become "as David Lifton has pointed=20
>out"--again, an opinion is cited as evidence.
>3) He seeks to discredit Anna Lewis by reporting that she was offered a=20
>share of proceeds from the book. He fails to mention that this didn't=20
>even come up until AFTER she had been thoroughly interviewed and=20
>videotaped, and THEN a conversation resulting in learning of some=20
>financial difficulties. Judyth's concern for her is transformed by=20
>McAdams into some sort of bribery attempt.
>4) He cites as further "evidence" statements by Robert Harris, who got=20
>one of Judyth's high school classmates mixed up with Anna Lewis, due to=20
>a similarity in first names--and presents Robert's error as "proof" that=20
>Anna Lewis didn't appear in "early versions" of Judyth's story. In fact,=20
>she mentioned Anna BEFORE she communicated with Robert.
>5) He also makes use of another Harris error--the assumption that=20
>meetings after work left Marina "constantly alone at night," though=20
>Judyth has always been clear that Lee went home each night to Marina.
>6) McAdams assumes, as usual, that anything that hasn't been vomited=20
>forth at his request doesn't, therefore, exist--that nothing is being=20
>saved for the book that he doesn't know about. He is, as usual,=20
>incorrect in this assumption.
>7) He has made much of the fact that she didn't mention Lee's writing in=20
>early e-mails. She had 40 boxes of materials, and at that point she=20
>didn't know whether the writing was there or had been thrown out. Once=20
>she located it, she mentioned it. She didn't want to cite evidence she=20
>wasn't sure she still had.
>8) He accepts Robert Baker's account of how she got the Reily job,=20
>though he was on a boat in the Gulf of Mexico at the time, and his=20
>account is contradicted by the documentary evidence. He also accepts=20
>that Baker remember's Judyth's exact words in talking about Lee Oswald=20
>at the time of the assassination--despite Baker's repeated errors of=20
>memory on even general items.
>9) He accepts the opinions of some of her classmates on the quality of=20
>her high school cancer research--no clue as to whether they have even=20
>the slightest qualifications to evaluate it.
>10) He attributes mention of Dr. Alton Ochsner as left-leaning "reverse=20
>McCarthyism"--he must have been named simply because he was=20
>anti-communist. This begs the question: Why him? New Orleans was FULL of=20
>anti-communists. And McAdams suggests that because he was "a=20
>humanitarian," he couldn't have been involved in an anti-Castro=20
>plot--perhaps his silliest argument yet.
>11) Was Guy Banister involved with the CIA? McAdams tells us that the=20
>CIA says no--who could doubt them?
>12) Judyth referred to a group of documents as a sort of informal=20
>"manual," and sometimes referred in shorthand to them as an "MK/ULTRA=20
>Manual." Louis Girdler took her literally, and McAdams cites his error=20
>as a source.
>13) The only source on whether Ruby was called "Sparky" turns out to be=20
>Hugh Aynesworth.
>14) Anything that appears anywhere in the literature or on the Internet=20
>is assumed to have been the basis for its appearance in Judyth's=20
>account. This serves McAdams in two ways: he can dismiss anything for=20
>which evidence can't be found, and he can dismiss anything for which=20
>evidence CAN be found by saying she got it second-hand from that source.=20
> He portrays a Judyth who has a far greater grasp of assassination=20
>literature and documentation that any researcher I've encountered--not=20
>at all the Judyth I know, who is very much a novice in that regard.
>15) He claims that, with regard to Garrison's claims, Judyth "embraces=20
>it wholeheartedly", which is simply not true--in fact, very MUCH not=20
>true. Later, he himself cites some of the differences between Garrison's=20
>claims and Judyth's account.
>16) He cites various factual errors that she has made regarding=20
>information that would not have come from her personal knowledge--not at=20
>all surprising. He tries, however, to use this to discredit her own=20
>recollections, as though there was no difference between the two.
>17) Referring to an uncorrected outline he has obtained, he attributes=20
>every statement to Judyth, though some are characterizations by Howard=20
>Platzman--and some of those were later corrected. The same is true of an=20
>uncorrected "draft chapter" on which he relies heavily.
>18) As in his win-win approach to evidence, McAdams considers any=20
>mention of a name already in the literature as "evidence" of Judyth's=20
>unreliability. To get the point across, he includes names which are only=20
>casually mentioned, and implies that they are relevant to her=20
>account--another misleading effort. One name, for example, is Herbert=20
>Philbrick--whom Judyth has never claimed as part of her account. McAdams=20
>is in such a rush to create a list that he provides no real evidence=20
>that Judyth refers significantly to many of them. Citing Richard Case=20
>Nagell, he assumes she is referring to Nagell when she only had a vague=20
>recollection of a "Nagy or Nagell." Many researchers will recognized the=20
>name Nagy as well, so it's hardly a given that she heard "Nagell."
>19) Again in lieu of evidence, McAdams cites Rich Della Rosa's=20
>characterization of her as a "Forrest Gump" of the assassination, and=20
>continues to cite "the Paul Hoch ratio test" as though it were a law of=20
>science--though in the paper McAdams cites, Hoch says "I suspect" that=20
>it might be "a useful measure." Not only does McAdams elevate it to=20
>certainty, but he goes on to refer to "a corollary" of the "test." This=20
>is all mumbo-jumbo of the rankest sort.
>20) Once again, McAdams makes much of a reference to "Cancun" written by=20
>Judyth's original agent, and not yet removed from the ancient chapter=20
>draft leaked to him after it was surreptitiously copied. He also again=20
>assumes that David Lifton can tell the difference between "Cancun" and=20
>"Kankun" (the village that existed in 1963) in a phone call.
>21) He makes much of her dog breeding, apparently considering himself an=20
>expert on the subject, offers one anecdote, and then just quotes her=20
>without providing any evidence that what she's saying isn't accurate.
>22) In his section on Mormonism, he seems to assume that Mormons would=20
>be reading books attacking Mormonism, and thus Judyth obtained her=20
>information from such books while she was a Mormon.
>23) He makes his usual silly references to "Team Judyth," and proceeds=20
>to speak with authority regarding what Howard Platzman and I have and=20
>haven't done--a subject about which he knows next to nothing. He falsely=20
>states that certain information has never been verified. He refers to us=20
> as working on "the big score," which is a gross misrepresentation of=20
>our activities. He also repeats his own mythical characterization of the=20
>Dallas conference incident as though it were established fact.
>24) He ridicules her account of the "green glass," noting that she said=20
>her daughter threw out a note that was in the glass. Her daughter, in=20
>fact, recallrf the incident, and how upset her mother was that she had=20
>thrown out the note--odd, if it was just an old "receipt," as McAdams=20
>suggests it was.
>25) She was known in New Orleans as Judyth Vary, and later used her=20
>married name Judyth Baker--as well as a pen name in some writings--but=20
>McAdams assumes that any visibility at all under the latter two names=20
>disproves any idea that she was "in hiding." Of course, she has never=20
>claimed she was "in hiding" during those years--just that she was=20
>avoiding any indication of association with Oswald.
>26) He admits that her first agent was "shopping around" her manuscript=20
>by April 1999, and yet expects us to believe that she has made=20
>significant changes in her account since that time--as though no one=20
>would notice who had seen the original manuscript.
>27) He repeats the false claim that "Most of the people with whom she=20
>has shared her story have come away skeptical"--in fact, he doesn't=20
>really know with whom she has shared it, and so has no definite group on=20
>which to base a claim of "most." This is more mumbo-jumbo.
>
>In short, McAdams' "critique" is a mixture of re-hashed claims, his own=20
>opinions, material from his own website, incestuous exchanges of opinion=20
>with his fellow Judyth-haters, quotes from uncorrrected drafts, and=20
>misrepresentations of her own account. McAdams could have waited for the=20
>definitive account--but then it might get published before he could=20
>stage his pre-emptive strike.
>
>Martin
>
>John McAdams wrote:
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>>=20
>> .John
>>=20
Gary Buell
> On 11 Sep 2003 22:22:49 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
> >
>
> <Quote on>
>
> But, according to Judyth, her life was interesting all they way back
> to childhood. Judyth told Prof. Luis Urrea that as a child she was a
> close friend of Dr. Seuss, and used the word "nerd" (which she had
> invented) in his presence. He liked it, and used it in one of his
> books, making it a common word in the language. (Source: E-mail to
> the author from Luis Urrea dated September 7, 2003.)
>From the web:
LAST WEEK'S GEEK TRIVIA ANSWER: Last week I asked: "Who coined the
term, 'nerd'?" The answer: The popular American children's author
Doctor Seuss invented the word for his 1950 book, "If I Ran the Zoo."
The line is: "And then, just to show them, I'll sail to Ka-Troo And
Bring Back an It-Kutch a Preep and a Proo A Nerkle a Nerd and a
Seersucker, too!" Congratulations to William R. Barnette Jr. of
Newberry, South Carolina, for being first with the right answer.
Question: How old would Judyth have been in 1950?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <Quote off>
>
> .John
Gary Buell
> wrote:
>
> >
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
> >
>
> <Quote on>
>
> But, according to Judyth, her life was interesting all they way back
> to childhood. Judyth told Prof. Luis Urrea that as a child she was a
> close friend of Dr. Seuss, and used the word "nerd" (which she had
> invented) in his presence. He liked it, and used it in one of his
> books, making it a common word in the language. (Source: E-mail to
> the author from Luis Urrea dated September 7, 2003.)
>
> <Quote off>
Once more, from the American Heritage Dictionary:
nerd also nurd n. Slang.
1.A person regarded as stupid, inept, or unattractive. 2.A person who is
single-minded or accomplished in scientific pursuits but is felt to be
socially inept.
[Perhaps after Nerd, a character in If I Ran the Zoo, by Theodor Seuss
Geisel.]
WORD HISTORY: The word nerd and a nerd, undefined but illustrated, first
appeared in 1950 in Dr. Seuss's If I Ran the Zoo: "And then, just to show
them, I'll sail to Ka-Troo And Bring Back an It-Kutch a Preep and a Proo a
Nerkle a Nerd and a Seersucker, too!" (The nerd itself is a small humanoid
creature looking comically angry, like a thin, cross Chester A. Arthur.)
Nerd next appears, with a gloss, in the February 10, 1957, issue of the
Glasgow, Scotland, Sunday Mail in a regular column entitled "ABC for
SQUARES": "Nerd -- a square, any explanation needed?" Many of the terms
defined in this "ABC" are unmistakable Americanisms, such as hep, ick, and
jazzy, as is the gloss "square," the current meaning of nerd. The third
appearance of nerd in print is back in the United States in 1970 in
Current Slang: "Nurd [sic], someone with objectionable habits or traits. .
. . An uninteresting person, a 'dud.'"
Authorities disagree on whether the two nerds -- Dr. Seuss's small
creature and the teenage slang term in the Glasgow Sunday Mail -- are the
same word. Some experts claim there is no semantic connection and the
identity of the words is fortuitous. Others maintain that Dr. Seuss is the
true originator of nerd and that the word nerd ("comically unpleasant
creature") was picked up by the five- and six-year-olds of 1950 and passed
on to their older siblings, who by 1957, as teenagers, had restricted and
specified the meaning to the most comically obnoxious creature of their
own class, a "square."
Deb Bert
> I'm trying to remember the last time someone was SO worried about the
> possible publication of a book that they launched a pre-emptive strike
Martin,
You've convinced me.
As far as McAdams website goes, the first time I went there, I looked
over a few pages and decided that it couldn't be taken seriously. He uses
connotatively loaded words, sarcasm, ennuendos, exaggerations, and
over-statements as frequently as college freshmen use passive voice in
english comp. 101. (That'd be like about 90% of the time.)
In other words, I find it difficult to accept anything on that
website--even if it's truthful since it's so heavily ladened with
emotional appeals rather than appeals to the intellect. It's a bit heavy
on the paranoia too--such as this preemptive strike on this person (whom I
had never heard of until McAdams started attacking her on this NG).
--Deb
Deb Bert
...
> If she isn't correct about the American Cream Dog being simply the
> offspring of a mutt she brought back from Norway, where *did* the
> "breed" come from?
Doc--What does this have to do with the Kennedy assassination? If
you're interested in where breeds come from, write to the AKC or visit
the library.
...
> Do you deny that what "ihateliars" (apparently Matt Allison) posted was
> accurate?
Doc--That "L" word is a nasty. I don't think you should be using that
word in mixed company.
...
> Was Rich lying when he said that Judyth couldn't describe Roselli and
> Ragano correctly?
Doc--there you go with that "L" word again. Making it a gerund
doesn't help, I'm afraid.
...
> So Harris is now mistaken too, eh?
Doc--"Mistaken" --Now there's a genteel word for mixed company.
...
> Just how *many* people have to be "mistaken" in order for you to accept
> Judyth's account?
Doc--"Mistaken!" It becomes easier with practice, doesn't it.
...
> Maybe Bob will jump in and tell he whether he have have been confused
> about this.
Doc--He who ha-ha ho have? (I think I'm starting to get the hang of
this NG-speak....)
.....
> > And McAdams suggests that because he was "a
> > humanitarian," he couldn't have been involved in an anti-Castro
> > plot--perhaps his silliest argument yet.
>
>
> I don't think he would have been involved in a plot to kill a hapless
> mental patient.
Doc--Really? Do you have any convincing evidence about that? I
thought we weren't into taking each other's words on this NG. (You
know--cultivating the paranoia thing.)
> > 11) Was Guy Banister involved with the CIA? McAdams tells us that the
> > CIA says no--who could doubt them?
Doc--Shame on you. Are telling us a...tall tale? Come on now.
The truth shall set you free!
....
> The CIA says "no" in Top Secret documents. You know, the kind you
> always wanted released.
>
> The kind you don't believe, now that they have been released, when they
> don't show what you want them to.
Doc--get real. The CIA only "releases" what it wants to release when
it wants to release it and once it's been sanitized and re-written to
portray history the way the CIA wants us all to believe it happened.
BTW--do you know of some good reason why we should believe anything
the CIA says?
.....
> Martin, the notion that the CIA would share a bunch of stuff on MK/ULTRA
> with Ruby, or Judyth, or anybody else in New Orleans in 1963 is absurd.
Yeah, Martin! The CIA never shares the straight dope on anything!
Grow up, Martin! And the idea that they would share the facts about
anything with mere commoners and peons in 1963 is
well....it's....ludicrous.
(Did I write "straight dope" in the same sentence with CIA? I can't
believe I wrote that...)
> You need to bone up on the concepts "closely held" and "need to know."
Doc--you know those phrases pretty well? I'll bet you do.
...
Doc--"Martin's being slippery..." Is that another way of calling
Martin a fibber?
....
> Hurts to have an extended critique all in one place, doesn't it Martin?
Doc--Is that what you're trying to do? Hurt people?
> So it's alright for you to invoke her testimony, but wrong for others to
> debunk her?
....
Doc--"to debunk her." Is that another way of calling her
a....promoter of falsehoods?
....
--Deb
Dave Reitzes
Have you been checking into JFKresearch lately? If not, you'll want to
check out an article Rich has uploaded to his "Featured Articles" page,
concerning the claims of Oswald in North Dakota. I believe there will be
other related articles forthcoming.
Dave
Deb Bert
> >Are you aware
> >of any piece of evidence that absolutely rules out her story? I think that's
> >the first-level issue here.
> And the notion that you can give somebody cancer by injecting cancer
> cells -- a central part of her story -- is bizarre. So is the notion
> that you would *need* to do anything else to somebody after you have
> wiped out their immune system.
>
> In one sense, nobody needs to read past that part of the essay.
> Unless they are interested in hearing more of Judyth's nonsense. :-)
>
> .John
Doc--
TITLE OF PROJECT: ALLOGENIC GLIOMA IN IMMUNE COMPETENT DOGS
Principal Investigator: Michael Berens
Subjects: Dogs (female beagles and their puppies)
Funding agency: NIH through NINDS (National Institute of Neurological
Disorders and Stroke)
*****Objectives of research: 1) To implement a procedure for injecting
cancer cells (glioma cells) into unborn puppies at a time when their
undeveloped immune systems will not reject the cells. *****
2) To use this procedure for developing an animal model that will
develop malignant brain tumors.
3) To study the course of these brain tumors in dogs.
4) To study different courses of therapy on the dogs including
irradiation, chemotherapy and surgical excision.
5) To sell the patented procedure for injecting the cancer cells into
fetal puppies and "tricking" their immune systems into accepting the
cancer cells.
6)To use the dogs and puppies with brain tumors in toxicity testing
for cancer treatments.
Method:The fetuses of pregnant female beagles are **injected with
glioma cells** at a point in development when a puppy's immune system
will not reject the cells. The cells cause the development of small
tumors under the skin of the puppies. At four to six months of age,
the tumors are excised from under the skin of the puppies. The puppies
are put into a stereotaxic instrument, a hole is bored into the
parietal lobe of the brain, the excised tumor is planted in the brain.
The implanted tumors develop into large malignant brain tumors in the
puppies. The course of the brain tumors and treatments are followed.
The treatments include irradiation, chemotherapy, and surgery. At
between nine and twelve months of age, the puppies are destroyed and
histologies are performed.
....
This type of research has been going on **at least** since 1970--which
I know beyond a shadow of a doubt. The research cited above, of
course, is using animals because using humans isn't considered nice.
--Deb
Dave Reitzes
[...]
David Lifton's opinion
>(based on a single phone call) become "as David Lifton has pointed
>out"--again, an opinion is cited as evidence.
This seems an odd objection given the fact that Lifton has offered to
release a tape-recorded interview with Judyth to substantiate his opinions
about her, but Martin will not allow it:
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------
Subject: Lifton's challenge to Shackelford
From: "David S. Lifton" dli...@earthlink.net
Date: 8/27/03 2:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <vkq0ol9...@corp.supernews.com>
[...]
Now to the main point: Why don't you and Platzman, your cohort, use your
connections with that looney tunes, Judyth, for explicit written
permission to put the tape on the Internet. Then everyone can listen to
it, from Saginaw to Timbuktu, and we can all decide on Judyth's
credibility.
I think it would be most enlightening for all concerned just what this
lady sounds like as she gets up a head of verbal steam, and goes through
her paces. Hint hint: she ain't no Seabiscuit (and she certainly ain't War
Admiral).
C'mon Shack. . .do your shuffle. . let's get a signed release from Judyth
to post her entire March, 2000 conversation with David Lifton --not just
the sentence about Cancun, but everything--on the Internet, and then we
can all listen this raving lunatic and assess her credibility.
Now that's what I call "getting real."
Want to go for it?
Truth or dare?
DSL
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------
From: Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Lifton's challenge to Shackelford
Date: 28 Aug 2003 22:14:36 -0500
The main point? Asking us to obtain legal cover for you to present you
with the opportunity to escape the consequences of perhaps illegally
tape-recording a telephone call? If you wanted cover, you should have
gotten it by acting in a principled manner--no sign of that, though.
That's what you call "getting real"? Covering your questionable behavior?
No thanks, David. You're on your own.
Martin
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------
Dave
Perpetual Starlight: Original fiction, music and more
http://www.reitzes.com
JFK Online: John F. Kennedy assassination
http://www.jfk-online.com
Dave Reitzes
>McCarthyism"--he must have been named simply because he was
>anti-communist. This begs the question: Why him? New Orleans was FULL of
>anti-communists. And McAdams suggests that because he was "a
>humanitarian," he couldn't have been involved in an anti-Castro
>plot--perhaps his silliest argument yet.
Do you have any evidence that Ochsner was involved in such a plot?
Dave Reitzes
>11) Was Guy Banister involved with the CIA? McAdams tells us that the
>CIA says no--who could doubt them?
Do you have any evidence that Banister performed any services for the CIA?
Dave Reitzes
>Judyth's original agent, and not yet removed from the ancient chapter
>draft leaked to him after it was surreptitiously copied. He also again
>assumes that David Lifton can tell the difference between "Cancun" and
>"Kankun" (the village that existed in 1963) in a phone call.
Again, David Lifton has offered to Martin to release a tape recording of
that phone conversation so that others can judge for themselves; but
Martin has only acted to suppress that tape. Why?
Dave Reitzes
>by April 1999, and yet expects us to believe that she has made
>significant changes in her account since that time--as though no one
>would notice who had seen the original manuscript.
Judyth told me in October 2000 that the manuscript she was shopping around
contained instances of deliberate disinformation -- "flags," she called
them. She said this was to help insure against the manuscript being
"pirated."
You're saying this is not true, Martin?
Barb Junkkarinen
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030912213756...@mb-m29.aol.com...
Oh please, Dave, don't tell me that old dog is being dragged back onto the
track...sigh. But then I guess that's part of the double (triple?) Oswald
thing, eh? A simple N.O. interpreted as an N.D. ..... and it's off to the
races....but, if I recall correctly, there's something that follows later
in those same notes that makes it clear it was Louisiana being talked
about??? Is the text of those notes anywhere online?
Thanks,
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
McAdams attack page on Judyth.
Martin
Dave Reitzes
>Martin Shackelford wrote:
>> Citing Richard Case
>> Nagell, he assumes she is referring to Nagell when she only had a vague
>> recollection of a "Nagy or Nagell." Many researchers will recognized the
>> name Nagy as well, so it's hardly a given that she heard "Nagell."
>
>
>She is still "spicing up" the account by throwning in names familiar to
>readers of conspiracy books.
John, I'm not familiar with Judyth's mention of Nagell. Where's this from?
(No point in my asking Martin.)
Dave
P.S. Is Martin serious about the "Nagy" thing? \:^)
Dave Reitzes
>
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>
>.John
John, is there a link to this article from your site? I don't see one.
Dave
Mitch Todd
> "Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Have you been checking into JFKresearch lately? If not, you'll want to
> > check out an article Rich has uploaded to his "Featured Articles" page,
> > concerning the claims of Oswald in North Dakota. I believe there will be
> > other related articles forthcoming.
> Oh please, Dave, don't tell me that old dog is being dragged back onto the
> track...sigh. But then I guess that's part of the double (triple?) Oswald
> thing, eh? A simple N.O. interpreted as an N.D. ..... and it's off to the
> races....but, if I recall correctly, there's something that follows later
> in those same notes that makes it clear it was Louisiana being talked
> about??? Is the text of those notes anywhere online?
Welcome to Usenet, where discredited theories never die, and lack the
basic decency to just fade away.
MST
Dave Reitzes
>
>
>"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> >> Hi, Tracy.
>>
>> Have you been checking into JFKresearch lately? If not, you'll want to
>> check out an article Rich has uploaded to his "Featured Articles" page,
>> concerning the claims of Oswald in North Dakota. I believe there will be
>> other related articles forthcoming.
>>
>> Dave
>
>Oh please, Dave, don't tell me that old dog is being dragged back onto the
>track...sigh. But then I guess that's part of the double (triple?) Oswald
>thing, eh? A simple N.O. interpreted as an N.D. ..... and it's off to the
>races....but, if I recall correctly, there's something that follows later
>in those same notes that makes it clear it was Louisiana being talked
>about??? Is the text of those notes anywhere online?
>
>Thanks,
>Barb :-)
The article in question deals mainly with witnesses in North Dakota who claim
they knew Oswald, that sort of thing . . . nothing I see much point in talking
about these days. I know that Tracy has a particular interest in the subject,
though. Unless his interest, like mine, has waned.
Martin Shackelford
other on the backs.
Martin
Louis
"12) Judyth referred to a group of documents as a sort of informal
"manual," and sometimes referred in shorthand to them as an "MK/ULTRA
Manual." Louis Girdler took her literally, and McAdams cites his error
as a source."
In fact, when I first discussed with Judyth her claim about being
shown [by David Ferrie] the MK/ULTRA "Manual," I asked pointed
questions about (e.g.) what the cover of the manual looked like, how
it was marked, bound, the color of the cover, how the pages were
marked, what security classification was on the cover of the manual
and on the pages, etc. When I had asked these specific questions
about the "manual" [I have handled Top Secret documents and she knew
it], Judyth became very defense and asked why I was asking all of
these specific questions. DUH! I suggested that if she in fact was
shown this highly classified manual – with her "astonishing memory" –
she would recall the details of the "manual." She declined to provide
any. She then suggested that I send Martin my description of what the
document should look like and she would do likewise and then Martin
could compare them!
I thought this was silly and an obvious dodge to avoid showing her
ignorance of how highly classified manuals are marked. At no time did she
ever state or infer that the documents were not bound in a manual. To the
contrary, she specifically stated that the MK/ULTRA document was a
"manual." I specifically asked her HOW the MANUAL was bound and she
declined to answer. At that point she could have stated that it was not
really a "manual." She did not.
The "loose collection" of papers revision to her story emerged AFTER I
mentioned my incredulity about the incident to Martin and Howard [MK/ULTRA
extended over years and consisted of several different projects -- there
never was a "manual."]. It is this "loose collection" altered version of
Judyth's story that they now claim is the reality. It's not true.
Louis
----------
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:<bjs1r4$o...@dispatch.concentric.net>...
LTG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net>
To: "LTG" <para...@gtw.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: Should We Believe Judyth?
> Is Lifton reliable when he cites you in claiming that you had a personal
> meeting with Howard Platzman during which he "admitted" offering Anna
> Lewis a bribe BEFORE she was videotaped?
>
> Martin
---------------------
Martin,
Howard Platzman told me personally -- in a telephone conversation [it
wasn't a "personal meeting," and I have never claimed to have met with him
(or you) personally] -- that he offered to compensate Anna Lewis after the
book was published. Howard obviously would not and did not refer to it as
a "bribe," nor have I, although it could be taken that way [see below].
When Howard made the statement, I asked him why on earth he would offer
her money, knowing how it would appear? He said that he felt sorry for
her and "she needed the money." I asked Howard what Anna did for a living
and he said she was some type of a "home care provider" or words to that
effect. I was given the impression she babysat the elderly.
He may well have said that he made the offer after the video taping. I
told Howard that he should not have offered any "witness" any compensation
at any time. Howard AGREED but said he "felt sorry" for Anna.
When you check with Howard, as you certainly will, he should confirm the
above. There may well be subsequent e-mails documenting portions of the
above conversation between myself and Howard.
I am not sure how important [as suggested by your e-mail] the timing of
the offer is, Martin. It's reasonable to assume that the offer would not
be made UNTIL what Anna had to say was recorded to ensure that it was
sufficiently revelatory. This is the legal equivalent of a "proffer."
It is also reasonable to assume that the offer of compensation would deter
Anna from later retracting her statements -- it would tend to "bind" the
agreement. The video tape could be used provided she was compensated.
Comprende?
Louis
------------
John McAdams
If the statements came first, and the offer of compensation later,
that raises the possibility that Anna was telling Team Judyth
"interesting" things to curry favor with them, in the hope of later
asking for money.
The situation might be a bit like Delphine Roberts and Tony Summers.
Her asking for money would carry the implicit threat that her
testimony might be withdrawn if Team Judyth didn't cough up the cash,
and the implicit promise that more "interesting" testimony might be
forthcoming if they did.
Isn't it true that her story has gotten "better" since Team Judyth
promised her a share of the proceeds?
.John
--
John McAdams
>John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message news:<3F61FC...@marquette.edu>...
> ...
>> If she isn't correct about the American Cream Dog being simply the
>> offspring of a mutt she brought back from Norway, where *did* the
>> "breed" come from?
>
>Doc--What does this have to do with the Kennedy assassination? If
>you're interested in where breeds come from, write to the AKC or visit
>the library.
If Judyth claimed a new "breed" when in fact all she had was a mutt,
that doesn't help her credibility, does it?
>...
>> Do you deny that what "ihateliars" (apparently Matt Allison) posted was
>> accurate?
>
>Doc--That "L" word is a nasty. I don't think you should be using that
>word in mixed company.
>...
Notice Martin didn't answer. That's because he was bitching about my
posting something from "ihateliars" but couldn't contradict what I
posted.
>> Was Rich lying when he said that Judyth couldn't describe Roselli and
>> Ragano correctly?
>
>Doc--there you go with that "L" word again. Making it a gerund
>doesn't help, I'm afraid.
A Sashay(tm) doesn't help, I'm afraid.
>...
>> So Harris is now mistaken too, eh?
>
>Doc--"Mistaken" --Now there's a genteel word for mixed company.
>...
>
>> Just how *many* people have to be "mistaken" in order for you to accept
>> Judyth's account?
>
>Doc--"Mistaken!" It becomes easier with practice, doesn't it.
>...
>> Maybe Bob will jump in and tell he whether he have have been confused
>> about this.
>
>Doc--He who ha-ha ho have? (I think I'm starting to get the hang of
>this NG-speak....)
>
No, you're not.
>.....
>> > And McAdams suggests that because he was "a
>> > humanitarian," he couldn't have been involved in an anti-Castro
>> > plot--perhaps his silliest argument yet.
>>
>>
>> I don't think he would have been involved in a plot to kill a hapless
>> mental patient.
>
>Doc--Really? Do you have any convincing evidence about that? I
>thought we weren't into taking each other's words on this NG. (You
>know--cultivating the paranoia thing.)
>
The character of any person is relevant to deciding what they might
and might not have done. That's why buffs always portray
anti-Communists as scum, so they can "suspect" them as conspirators.
>> > 11) Was Guy Banister involved with the CIA? McAdams tells us that the
>> > CIA says no--who could doubt them?
>
>Doc--Shame on you. Are telling us a...tall tale? Come on now.
>The truth shall set you free!
>....
>
>> The CIA says "no" in Top Secret documents. You know, the kind you
>> always wanted released.
>>
>> The kind you don't believe, now that they have been released, when they
>> don't show what you want them to.
>
>Doc--get real. The CIA only "releases" what it wants to release when
>it wants to release it and once it's been sanitized and re-written to
>portray history the way the CIA wants us all to believe it happened.
>
They you think all the people who were demanding "release the
documents!" were being silly.
>BTW--do you know of some good reason why we should believe anything
>the CIA says?
>
You should believe their own internal Secret and Top Secret documents
when they are telling each other what Garrison might and might not
find out.
>.....
>
>> Martin, the notion that the CIA would share a bunch of stuff on MK/ULTRA
>> with Ruby, or Judyth, or anybody else in New Orleans in 1963 is absurd.
>
>Yeah, Martin! The CIA never shares the straight dope on anything!
Sashay(tm)!!
It's absurd to think that the CIA would tell any of the Top Secret
details about MK/ULTRA to people like Jack Ruby or David Ferrie.
Even if you want to assume (implausibly) that they were CIA
operatives, they didn't have a "need to know."
>Grow up, Martin! And the idea that they would share the facts about
>anything with mere commoners and peons in 1963 is
>well....it's....ludicrous.
>
Indeed it is.
Why do you think they ever classify things "Top Secret?"
>(Did I write "straight dope" in the same sentence with CIA? I can't
>believe I wrote that...)
>
>> You need to bone up on the concepts "closely held" and "need to know."
>
>Doc--you know those phrases pretty well? I'll bet you do.
>...
>Doc--"Martin's being slippery..." Is that another way of calling
>Martin a fibber?
>....
>> Hurts to have an extended critique all in one place, doesn't it Martin?
>
>Doc--Is that what you're trying to do? Hurt people?
>
If the truth hurts them, yes.
>> So it's alright for you to invoke her testimony, but wrong for others to
>> debunk her?
>....
>Doc--"to debunk her." Is that another way of calling her
>a....promoter of falsehoods?
>....
>
Calling her that, and proving it.
Look, Deb, if you really want to participate in this discussion, you
need to get engaged, rather than throwing out a bunch of flip
comments.
One gets the impression that you are emotionally attached to anybody
telling a conspiracy tale.
Have you actually *read* my essay on Judyth?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
Martin Shackelford
Nor is it true that she has "no conclusive physical evidence for her
story"--you've been taking McAdams' CLAIMS too seriously.
You do, however, have the insight to note how hollow McAdams case is--I
would think you would find that more troubling, rather than declaring it
"revealing and persuasive."
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Beverly Oliver claims to be "the Babushka woman," not just a general
claim of being in Dealey Plaza. THAT'S something that might be subject
to proof or disproof.
"The killer" is the fact that you find something "implausible" and
"bizarre"? No wonder Ken realized you can't disprove Judyth's account.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
John McAdams
>>From: john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
>>
>>
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>>
>>.John
>
>
>John, is there a link to this article from your site? I don't see one.
>
Not yet, but there will be real soon now.
.John
--
Martin Shackelford
Lifton has asked JUDYTH to sign a release--the only person who can.
Inconvenient for you, I know, but facts are facts.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
the evidence will be in the book, not posted on demand here.
Martin
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Wrong again, John.
>Beverly Oliver claims to be "the Babushka woman," not just a general
>claim of being in Dealey Plaza. THAT'S something that might be subject
>to proof or disproof.
>"The killer" is the fact that you find something "implausible" and
>"bizarre"? No wonder Ken realized you can't disprove Judyth's account.
>
OIC. It's just me who thinks it implausible and bizarre that the CIA
would recruit Judyth (a college student), Oswald (a high school
dropout), Ferrie (with a mail order Ph.D.), and Mary Sherman (an
orthopedic surgeon) to produce a bioweapon to kill Castro.
In spite of the fact that they *already* had toxins that could do the
job.
And they couldn't afford decent research facilities, so they used
Ferrie's and Mary's aparements!
John McAdams
>>From: John McAdams john.m...@marquette.edu
>>
>>Martin Shackelford wrote:
>>> Citing Richard Case
>>> Nagell, he assumes she is referring to Nagell when she only had a vague
>>> recollection of a "Nagy or Nagell." Many researchers will recognized the
>>> name Nagy as well, so it's hardly a given that she heard "Nagell."
>>
>>
>>She is still "spicing up" the account by throwning in names familiar to
>>readers of conspiracy books.
>
>
>John, I'm not familiar with Judyth's mention of Nagell. Where's this from?
>(No point in my asking Martin.)
>
>Dave
>
>P.S. Is Martin serious about the "Nagy" thing? \:^)
>
>
Yes, he is.
This is a bit confusing, since there are two pieces of her manuscript
that are both titled "Before the Silence Came: Lee's Last Phone
Calls." The piece I link from my essay is the final part of the
manuscript, apparently.
The other piece is the penultimate portion.
You can find it here, with all the Nagell stuff.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/temp/NOV15to17LASTfile.pdf
The Nagell stuff is so wild, I probably should put it into the body of
the essay.
Kenneth A. Rahn
I will take your comments serious. But what is the conclusive physical
evidence that Judyth has? I haven't seen it yet, burt maybe I have
overlooked something.
"Revealing and persuasive" meant that John made a strong case for
disbelieving Judyth. But that is not the same as proving her wrong. And
for the record, I try very hard not to believe anything one way or the
other in these things, although it is sometimes difficult. It seesm to me
that we can say three things about Judyth: (1) she has not produced
conclusive physical evidence; (2) she has said a few things that proved to
be factually incorrect; and (3) many of the elements of her narrative
could have come from public sources. These things tell me that she has not
yet proven her case. At least the first two of these things remnd me of
the general case for conspiracy in the JFK assassination.
Ken Rahn
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:bjufu1$n...@dispatch.concentric.net...
W. Tracy Parnell
own experiences with Judyth.
W. Tracy Parnell
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:bjufi8$n...@dispatch.concentric.net...
John McAdams
>>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>>26) He admits that her first agent was "shopping around" her manuscript
>>by April 1999, and yet expects us to believe that she has made
>>significant changes in her account since that time--as though no one
>>would notice who had seen the original manuscript.
>
>
>Judyth told me in October 2000 that the manuscript she was shopping around
>contained instances of deliberate disinformation -- "flags," she called
>them. She said this was to help insure against the manuscript being
>"pirated."
>
>You're saying this is not true, Martin?
>
My, my, it appears that we have two contradictory versions of why
things that were untrue were in the manuscript.
W. Tracy Parnell
W. Tracy Parnell
Dave Reitzes
>You keep saying that "Martin won't allow it"--that's just nonsense.
>Lifton has asked JUDYTH to sign a release--the only person who can.
>Inconvenient for you, I know, but facts are facts.
>
>Martin
You're not fooling anyone, Martin.
Dave
Martin Shackelford
fictional ones for me. I have NEVER criticized Weisberg's actions
regarding "JFK." Nor Ellsberg. More strawman arguments. You might have
more credibility, John, if you addressed what I SAID, rather than what
you want to INTERPRET as my meaning.
Also, I didn't say those in the Acknowledgements were "all evil
people"--another strawman. I was pointing out that a web page allegedly
devoted to deterimining WHETHER to believe Judyth seemed to involve only
people whose position is that one should NOT believe her--one-sided, not
some sort of forum on the matter. Nor does selectively quoting her make
it a presentation of both sides, any more than if she put up a web page
which included selective quotes from you to help make her case.
There is NOT "quite a long list" who have seen her evidence and
dismissed it. Two of those on your list of ten have seen some of it--as
far as I can tell, the rest have seen none of it. David Lifton
specifically declined to examine it. So much for "so many." They were,
for the most part, attacking her from Day One--so it's not surprising
that they were willing to help you out with another attack on her.
Again, you express opinions as mine which aren't--at no point did I say
that "none" of your sources is reliable, nor that they all contradict
Judyth--neither statement is accurate.
The fact that Cancun is a tourist site doesn't justify relying for
HISTORICAL information on a tourism website. Sashay, John.
You make the statement that I have "no reason for calling [Rose Baker's}
account erroneous." That, too, is highly erroneous. Robert Baker sent
Judyth an e-mail admitting that much of what Rose said was unfounded,
and she was repeatedly caught on the newsgroup making statements which
were contradicted by the contemporary documentary evidence--including
letters and postcards written by her husband, news articles, etc. The
fact is that Rose is not a reliable source on Judyth's account--partly
because she has no first-hand knowledge of anything relating to it.
Thanks for identifying "ihateliars" as Matt Allison--something he's
never admitted publicly. I would guess that he used the pseudonym to
post things he was reluctant to be associated with.
With regard to Rosselli and Ragano, Rich was mistaken. He would only be
lying if he knew that he was wrong and said it anyway. I don't know that.
I'm not prepared to take your word for what Mary Ferrell told Joe Biles.
Mary told at least six other people that she DIDN'T write the e-mail,
and speculated about the person she believed had written it.
No one has ever denied that Judyth's agent was circulating a manuscript
for possible publication. Citing Amy Reiter on the matter only
encourages people to go to a source which is unreliable on almost
everything else relating to Judyth.
If your information is based on the opinion's of "medical people," I
would suggest naming and quoting them. As for David Lifton's opinion
being "based on a lot of evidence"--he initially based it on a single
phone call, whatever evidence he may have looked at later. When the
"conclusion" is what you BEGIN with, I'd call it an opinion. Fetzer
operates the same way.
Do I know the sequence in New Orleans regarding the videotaping and the
discussion of helping out Anna financially at some point? Yes. I was
there, John. I KNOW what the sequence was--there is absolutely NO doubt.
Lifton sent me a copy of the statement from Louis on this matter--it is
without credibility. In it, Howard's physical responses are
described--but Louis HAS NEVER MET HOWARD. Here is what Lifton forwarded:
"Notice [below] how our credulous Wimmeister has bought into the
fictitious claims of Haslam and Anna Lewis. In a [foot-shuffling, head
down, eye-shifting] conversation with me, Howard Platzman admitted that
he offered Anna Lewis part of the take [$$] from Judyth's book in
exchange for her video taped interview. In response to my question
"Why on earth would you offer her money -- knowing that offer would
taint her testimony!!?" Howard responded simply that she needed it.
Just like Judyth?
Louis"
NOTE that Louis doesn't actually say the money discussion came BEFORE
the taping--he just assumes it. As for the physical description, of
course, that part could be one of Lifton's typical nasty little
fictions. There was, however, NO discussion of money BEFORE the taping.
Yes, Harris is mistaken. Not "now," always on these matters, as I have
posted previously. Your idea of asking Robert if he is confused about
this is nutty--he posted it, of COURSE he thinks he isn't confused--but
he is anyway. This is nothing new--nor is your habit of ignoring
inconvenient information contrary to what you want to believe about
Judyth. That's the whole tenor of your webpage about her, which is why I
would consider it disgraceful that it was posted by an academic. There
is nothing academic about it. It's a partisan rant.
"she didn't bother" to find the Oswald writings? No, John, she was going
through 40 boxes of material--she hadn't YET located them until she DID
locate them. Perhaps you can get your mind around that concept--chronology.
Congratulations on yet another strawman argument--you cited Robert Baker
as saying she got the Reily job when she was tired of flipping burgers.
There is no dispute that she had an earlier job at a burger place. But
you take the sequence "burger joint-Reily" and seek to turn it into
evidence that she had no help getting the Reily job. That's a very
strange concept of evidence, John, and won't wash.
Another strawman argument follows--I note Robert Baker's remarkably poor
memory. You imply that Judyth's must be equally bad, because you compare
the two on a direct basis. Another example of non-evidence masquerading
as "solid argument."
Regarding the high school cancer research, I appreciate the
clarification--you are offering YOUR medical opinion on the quality of
her research, and I've already commented on what that's worth.
Ochsner was mentioned "because he was a medical guy" and mentioned by
Haslam? Why not just talk about Dr. Mary Sherman? Your "explanation"
explains nothing, John. Nor do you help by trying to use your fallacious
assumption, that "she has used Haslam as a major source for her tale" as
supporting "evidence" for your argument. Logic doesn't work that way,
John. And you follow that with another "evidentiary" item: "I think."
And "you folks have painted a grotesque caricature of Ochsner"? Another
McAdams opinion, like too much of your "evidence."
Quite a few people have pointed out the logical fallacy of assuming that
a document is accurately reporting the facts simply because it was once
classified. No need to dwell on the point.
In 1975, we learned that the CIA was doing a lot of "absurd" things. It
is not enough for you to believe something absurd--that doesn't make it
untrue.
Judyth has made errors on some matters about which she had no direct
personal knowledge. So have we all. Another sashay, John.
It is true that Judyth has picked up a fair amount of assassination
literature information--the point I was making is that she still hasn't
reached the level of knowledge that would be necessary to do what you
and Lifton have accused her of doing--"inserting" herself into the
record. And the detail that you AVOID is that when she first sat down
and wrote her account for Dr. Riehl, she knew almost nothing about the
assassination literature. It didn't take me long to realize that--and I
think you know me well enough by now to know that I could easily spot
someone with very little grasp of the literature.
You repeat the claim that Judyth embraces Garrison's case
wholeheartedly. That's just nonsense, John, and may show how little you
really know about her ACTUAL account--and how much you are reading into
what little you know. That's something you do frequently, John, and it
might be worth taking a look at the problem. It does you no good. You
add that "she accepted the 'case' against Shaw"--not true at all.
You say that you have "three or four versions" of the outline. There are
MANY more than that, as it was an organic process. Some errors got
corrected right away, others were corrected later. If you got them from
your listed sources, they were all uncorrected drafts. I doubt that you
got any of them from a publisher--so you don't really KNOW what final
version went out to publishers.
You cite Judyth as mentioning that Lee met Herbert Philbrick, and use
this as "evidence" for the silly "Hoch Ratio Test" (which Hoch himself
presented as a speculative idea, not a certain test of anything), and
meaning her account is unreliable. What evidence do you have that Lee
DIDN'T meet Philbrick?
Your statement that "a lot of familar names are just thrown in without
any organic connection to the account" is EXACTLY what I've been saying
about the silly overblown list you use in arguing for the "ratio test."
You have a partly corrected chapter draft which still contained errors
made by her agent--they are still errors, even though they hadn't yet
been corrected in that draft. Her ORIGINAL account didn't mention
Cancun. Joe Riehl knows that. You use the term "ancient" as though the
fact it was older makes it more "Judyth." It was older--and not yet
fully corrected when it was surreptitiously copied. It was a detail
added by her agent in HIS draft--it was he who was "spicing up" the
manuscript, not Judyth. Dr. Riehl has never contradicted this, but you
believe what you what, as usual. Her earliest account of this matter
refers to a village in an area where there were Mayan ruins, in which
she had an interest.
"Have you been trying to get a book contract?" Me? No. Are you asking me
to speak for "Team Judyth," your fictional characterization? I can't
speak for something that exists only in your mind. Besides, you seem to
enjoy speaking for that mental entity of yours.
The Dallas Conference: She floated the idea, we all discussed it (the
e-mail you mention was only one of a long series of messages from
various people), and she decided it was a bad idea, and dropped it. Your
assumption was that we were afraid she would share her account--but
that's total crap. The way she had it planned, we were concerned that
she WOULDN'T be able to adequately present her account, and that she
would appear to be trying to compete with the JFK Lancer conference,
whose organizer had allied with David Lifton in the attack on her.
You're entitled to your opinion, John, but facts can be fun sometimes, too.
"All of Judyth's really 'good' evidence has somehow disappeared." This
statement is ridiculous--she has plenty of "good" evidence. And weren't
you arguing earlier that you suspected she had manufactured some of her
"good" evidence? That seemed to be what you were implying with regard to
the Oswald writings.
"Evil Minions of the Conspiracy"--do you never tire of attributing silly
terms like that to others?
Her employment papers at Reily, of course, show her as Judyth Baker.
Now, please explain what that has to do with how she was known to Ferrie
and those around him. Another strawman, of course.
Regarding the manuscript, and your "gotcha" nonsense on that subject,
you are forgetting that one "buff," Dr. Riehl, saw the ORIGINAL Judyth
account, posts on the newsgroups, and hasn't bought ANY of your silly
assumptions. He knows they have no merit.
"Why don't you give us a lot of names beside Team Judyth who believe
her?" Of course, John--why wouldn't I paint targets for you on everyone
who supports her? Perhaps because I'm not an idiot. Perhaps because many
have written privately and in confidence and some of us respect the
confidence of private e-mail. I could also list the researchers who have
independently confirmed various aspects of her account--but that's up to
them, not up to me.
"Hurts to have an extended critique all in one place"? Nope. Helps,
actually. Easier to deal with in one place than with Team McAdams' usual
scattershot attack posts. I've even sent the URL to some people who know
your methods, John. Nice recruiting tool. Keep it up.
Martin
John McAdams wrote:
> Martin Shackelford wrote:
>
>>I'm trying to remember the last time someone was SO worried about the
>>possible publication of a book that they launched a pre-emptive strike
>>against it. The only parallel that comes to mind is Harold Weisberg's
>>pre-emptive attack on the movie "JFK."
>
>
>
> OIC. You think that Weisberg should have *concealed* the nature of what
> Stone was doing.
>
> You don't think he should have leaked the shooting script to the
> WASHINGTON POST.
>
> Do you object to Daniel Ellsberg having leaked the Pentagon Papers?
>
>
>
>>In this case, the "Judyth" page of John McAdams' website, is clearly a
>>most one-sided project, as one can see from the last item:
>>
>>Acknowledgments – Thanks to the following people who have provided
>>helpful information and critical comments on various drafts of this
>>essay: Joe Biles, Robert Chapman, Dennis Frank, Louis Girdler, Paul
>>Hoch, Robert Johnson, John Leyden, David Lifton, Dave Reitzes, and Paul
>>Seaton.
>>
>
>
> These are all evil people?
>
> Martin, there is quite a long list of people who have listened to
> Judyth's story and come away convinced she is telling tall tales. The
> fact that there are so many, and that they care enough to help me out in
> this project speaks volumes.
>
>
>
>>It was also clearly a rush job, as the footnotes are full of typos.
>
>
> Actually, no. The fact that a bunch of words run together is a
> WordPerfect => HTML export issue. This will be fixed soon enough.
>
>
>
>
>>Most
>>of the non-footnoted "sources" are simply references to other pages on
>>McAdams' own website, some are other LN websites, and some are
>>references to the HSCA reports, ARRB testimony, or writings by his
>>collaborators listed in the above Acknowledgements.
>
>
> And none of those sources is reliable, eh?
>
> All of them contradict Judyth, eh?
>
> People can go to the pages cited and see the primary source citations in
> detail.
>
>
>
>
>>His "historical
>>information" regarding Cancun is sourced to a tourism website.
>>
>
>
> Since Cancun is a huge tourist destination, this makes good sense, does
> it not?
>
>
>
>>As for the footnotes, some are simply statements of McAdams' own
>>opinions, rather than an independent source. Some are e-mails from
>>individuals listed in the Acknowledgements, all long-time critics of
>>Judyth. He cites David Blackburst,
>
>
> I cite him on David Ferrie, since Blackburst is *the* expert on Ferrie.
>
>
>
>>Hugh Aynesworth,
>
>
>
> A reporter from the DALLAS MORNING NEWS in 1963, who knew Ruby, I cite
> to the effect that nobody called Ruby "Sparky" -- at least not to his
> face.
>
> I also cite Ruby's sister as telling the WC the same thing.
>
> But I suppose *they* are unreliable, and Judyth is reliable!
>
>
>
>>Gerald Posner,
>
>
> I cite him to the effect that Dutz Murret didn't much care for his
> nephew in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.
>
> Do you dispute that?
>
>
>
>>Patricia Lambert,
>
>
> I cite her to the effect that David Lewis told a lot of wacky stories to
> the Garrison office.
>
> Do you deny that?
>
>
>
>>an e-mail from Judyth's ex-husband (who has repeatedly
>>proven to have a highly unreliable memory with regard to these matters),
>>Rose Baker (his current wife, whose only source was the erroneous
>>recollections of her husband),
>
>
> You have no reason for calling her account "erroneous" besides the fact
> that it's inconvenient for Judyth.
>
> If she isn't correct about the American Cream Dog being simply the
> offspring of a mutt she brought back from Norway, where *did* the
> "breed" come from?
>
>
>
>>and the anonymous source "ihateliars."
>
>
> Do you deny that what "ihateliars" (apparently Matt Allison) posted was
> accurate?
>
>
>
>>Rich Della Rosa supplied posts from his newsgroup--and when something
>>damaging FROM Judyth couldn't be found, McAdams simply cite's Rich's own
>>posts as sources.
>
>
> Was Rich lying when he said that Judyth couldn't describe Roselli and
> Ragano correctly?
>
>
>
>>He also uses as a source the notorious e-mail that
>>Mary Ferrell has denied writing,
>
>
> I've supplied the e-mail headers. She wrote it, and she told Joe Biles
> that she did.
>
>
>
>>and the wildly unreliable 1999 Salon
>>column by Amy Reiter.
>>
>
>
> I cite this for the fact that an agent was "shopping around" a
> manuscript of Judyth's book.
>
> Do you deny this?
>
>
>
>>What is the "substance" of McAdams' "critique" of Judyth?
>>1) He admits that she was "an excellent science student," but notes that
>>Robert Johnson was able to find a classmate who has considered her
>>"weird" (big whoop!).
>>2) McAdams' own opinions make up a significant portion of the
>>"evidence"--the cancer project is "farfetched," this poli sci prof's
>>medical opinions about cancer,
>
>
> No, the opinion of medical people, including a colleague in Marquette's
> Biology Department.
>
>
>>another element is "unlikely," something
>>else "appears to be" (a frequent phrase), another "must be derived
>>from," another is "difficult to understand," etc. David Lifton's opinion
>>(based on a single phone call) become "as David Lifton has pointed
>>out"--again, an opinion is cited as evidence.
>
>
> Not "opinions." Conclusions. Based on a lot of evidence.
>
>
>
>>3) He seeks to discredit Anna Lewis by reporting that she was offered a
>>share of proceeds from the book. He fails to mention that this didn't
>>even come up until AFTER she had been thoroughly interviewed and
>>videotaped, and THEN a conversation resulting in learning of some
>>financial difficulties. Judyth's concern for her is transformed by
>>McAdams into some sort of bribery attempt.
>
>
>
> Can you supply evidence that it happened in this sequence?
>
> Your buddy Platzman apparently didn't tell it this way to Louis Gridler.
>
>
>
>>4) He cites as further "evidence" statements by Robert Harris, who got
>>one of Judyth's high school classmates mixed up with Anna Lewis, due to
>>a similarity in first names--and presents Robert's error as "proof" that
>>Anna Lewis didn't appear in "early versions" of Judyth's story. In fact,
>>she mentioned Anna BEFORE she communicated with Robert.
>
>
> So Harris is now mistaken too, eh?
>
> Just how *many* people have to be "mistaken" in order for you to accept
> Judyth's account?
>
> Maybe Bob will jump in and tell he whether he have have been confused
> about this.
>
>
>
>>5) He also makes use of another Harris error--the assumption that
>>meetings after work left Marina "constantly alone at night," though
>>Judyth has always been clear that Lee went home each night to Marina.
>
>
> A "Harris error," eh?
>
>
>
>>6) McAdams assumes, as usual, that anything that hasn't been vomited
>>forth at his request doesn't, therefore, exist--that nothing is being
>>saved for the book that he doesn't know about. He is, as usual,
>>incorrect in this assumption.
>
>
> You people have often produced lists of the "evidence" you have.
> "Deadly Alliance" contains such a list.
>
> Judyth has sent out scores (and perhaps hundreds) of e-mail bragging
> about the "evidence" she has.
>
> So when some supposedly dandy piece of evidence isn't mentioned, and
> then later pops up, it does create a lot of suspicion, doesn't it?
>
>
>
>>7) He has made much of the fact that she didn't mention Lee's writing in
>>early e-mails. She had 40 boxes of materials, and at that point she
>>didn't know whether the writing was there or had been thrown out. Once
>>she located it, she mentioned it. She didn't want to cite evidence she
>>wasn't sure she still had.
>
>
>
> You mean she was writing a book, and that she and Platzman were
> polishing "Deadly Alliance" to send out to publishers, and she didn't
> bother to find the *one* type of evidence that would have actually made
> people take her story seriously?
>
>
>
>>8) He accepts Robert Baker's account of how she got the Reily job,
>>though he was on a boat in the Gulf of Mexico at the time, and his
>>account is contradicted by the documentary evidence.
>
>
> And how is this?
>
> It won't do to say that she eventually worked a Reily's. You need to
> prove that she never worked at the burger joint.
>
> BTW, haven't you already admitted that she did?
>
>
>
>>He also accepts
>>that Baker remember's Judyth's exact words in talking about Lee Oswald
>>at the time of the assassination--despite Baker's repeated errors of
>>memory on even general items.
>
>
> This from a fellow who supports Judyth -- who has entire paragraphs full
> of "exact words!"
>
>
>
>>9) He accepts the opinions of some of her classmates on the quality of
>>her high school cancer research--no clue as to whether they have even
>>the slightest qualifications to evaluate it.
>
>
>
> No, I accept her classmate's memory that her rats got loose, thereby
> mixing up the experimental and control groups.
>
>
>
>>10) He attributes mention of Dr. Alton Ochsner as left-leaning "reverse
>>McCarthyism"--he must have been named simply because he was
>>anti-communist. This begs the question: Why him? New Orleans was FULL of
>>anti-communists.
>
>
>
> Because he was a medical guy, and Judyth has used Haslam as a major
> source for her tale.
>
>
>
>>And McAdams suggests that because he was "a
>>humanitarian," he couldn't have been involved in an anti-Castro
>>plot--perhaps his silliest argument yet.
>
>
>
> I don't think he would have been involved in a plot to kill a hapless
> mental patient.
>
> You folks have painted a grotesque caricature of Ochsner, and it's hard
> to believe the real Ochsner would take part in a plot against Kennedy.
>
>
>
>>11) Was Guy Banister involved with the CIA? McAdams tells us that the
>>CIA says no--who could doubt them?
>
>
>
> The CIA says "no" in Top Secret documents. You know, the kind you
> always wanted released.
>
> The kind you don't believe, now that they have been released, when they
> don't show what you want them to.
>
>
>
>>12) Judyth referred to a group of documents as a sort of informal
>>"manual," and sometimes referred in shorthand to them as an "MK/ULTRA
>>Manual." Louis Girdler took her literally, and McAdams cites his error
>>as a source.
>
>
>
> Martin, the notion that the CIA would share a bunch of stuff on MK/ULTRA
> with Ruby, or Judyth, or anybody else in New Orleans in 1963 is absurd.
>
> You need to bone up on the concepts "closely held" and "need to know."
>
>
>
>>13) The only source on whether Ruby was called "Sparky" turns out to be
>>Hugh Aynesworth.
>
>
>
> And excellent source, but I also cited Ruby's sister.
>
>
>
>>14) Anything that appears anywhere in the literature or on the Internet
>>is assumed to have been the basis for its appearance in Judyth's
>>account. This serves McAdams in two ways: he can dismiss anything for
>>which evidence can't be found, and he can dismiss anything for which
>>evidence CAN be found by saying she got it second-hand from that source.
>
>
> The problem is that she cites conspiracy factoids that are *contrary* to
> the evidence.
>
> The Minox "too sensitive" to need a light meter is an example.
>
>
>
>> He portrays a Judyth who has a far greater grasp of assassination
>>literature and documentation that any researcher I've encountered--not
>>at all the Judyth I know, who is very much a novice in that regard.
>
>
>
> False dichotomy. Judyth has assimiliated a lot of assassination
> minutiae, like the Minox, the shower shoes, Greer slowing the limo, etc.
>
> She doesn't have the comprehensive knowledge to avoid real boners.
>
>
>
>>15) He claims that, with regard to Garrison's claims, Judyth "embraces
>>it wholeheartedly", which is simply not true--in fact, very MUCH not
>>true.
>
>
>
> I say that "While many conspiracists have rejected Jim Garrison’s 'case'
> against Clay Shaw, Judyth embraces it wholeheartedly." And she does.
>
>
>
>>Later, he himself cites some of the differences between Garrison's
>>claims and Judyth's account.
>
>
>
> Huh? I said she accepted the "case" against Shaw.
>
>
>
>>16) He cites various factual errors that she has made regarding
>>information that would not have come from her personal knowledge--not at
>>all surprising. He tries, however, to use this to discredit her own
>>recollections, as though there was no difference between the two.
>
>
>
> You are going to need to be specific here.
>
>
>
>>17) Referring to an uncorrected outline he has obtained, he attributes
>>every statement to Judyth, though some are characterizations by Howard
>>Platzman--and some of those were later corrected. The same is true of an
>>uncorrected "draft chapter" on which he relies heavily.
>
>
>
> Martin, I have three or four versions of the "uncorrected" outline, and
> they all say pretty much the same thing.
>
> How did it go through so many revisions without being "corrected?"
>
> And how did it get sent out to so many people (including publishers)
> without getting "corrected?"
>
> I suppose when the book comes out you'll explain the boners in there as
> "errors" that didn't get "corrected."
>
>
>
>>18) As in his win-win approach to evidence, McAdams considers any
>>mention of a name already in the literature as "evidence" of Judyth's
>>unreliability. To get the point across, he includes names which are only
>>casually mentioned, and implies that they are relevant to her
>>account--another misleading effort. One name, for example, is Herbert
>>Philbrick--whom Judyth has never claimed as part of her account.
>
>
>>>From "Deadly Alliance:"
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Note: Lee later met the real Herbert Philbrick, who was a consultant to
> Ochsner’s group, INCA. He found his boyhood hero unimpressive in the
> flesh.
>
> <Quote off>
>
>>McAdams
>>is in such a rush to create a list that he provides no real evidence
>>that Judyth refers significantly to many of them.
>
>
> Martin's being slippery in the use of "signifcantly." A lot of familiar
> names are just thrown in without any organic connection to the account.
>
>
>
>>Citing Richard Case
>>Nagell, he assumes she is referring to Nagell when she only had a vague
>>recollection of a "Nagy or Nagell." Many researchers will recognized the
>>name Nagy as well, so it's hardly a given that she heard "Nagell."
>
>
>
> She is still "spicing up" the account by throwning in names familiar to
> readers of conspiracy books.
>
>
>
>>19) Again in lieu of evidence, McAdams cites Rich Della Rosa's
>>characterization of her as a "Forrest Gump" of the assassination,
>
>
> No, cites as a summary of what the evidence shows.
>
>
>
>>and
>>continues to cite "the Paul Hoch ratio test" as though it were a law of
>>science--though in the paper McAdams cites, Hoch says "I suspect" that
>>it might be "a useful measure." Not only does McAdams elevate it to
>>certainty, but he goes on to refer to "a corollary" of the "test." This
>>is all mumbo-jumbo of the rankest sort.
>
>
>
> Martin, some accounts show the clear hallmarks of having been drawn from
> conspiracy books, and not from life. Judyth's is one of these.
>
>
>
>>20) Once again, McAdams makes much of a reference to "Cancun" written by
>>Judyth's original agent, and not yet removed from the ancient chapter
>>draft leaked to him after it was surreptitiously copied.
>
>
> Martin, the "ancient" (read: "unsanitized") draft shows clear evidence
> of correction by Judyth, yet the "Cancun" business is there.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/endofline.pdf
>
>
>
>>He also again
>>assumes that David Lifton can tell the difference between "Cancun" and
>>"Kankun" (the village that existed in 1963) in a phone call.
>
>
>
> She wasn't referring to any "village" -- until she found out that the
> famous tourist destination didn't exist in 1963.
>
>
>
>>21) He makes much of her dog breeding, apparently considering himself an
>>expert on the subject, offers one anecdote,
>
>
> You mean this one?
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Judyth has been willing to engage in some chicanery to support her
> claims about her dogs. On one occasion she and several other students
> were in the home of Professor Urrea, for an informal seminar meeting.
> Judyth profusely praised the American Cream dog she had brought along,
> touting the breed’s intelligence. As the seminar progressed the dog was
> on the floor next to her, and she surreptitiously reached down and
> unfastened the dog's collar. As the dog bounded free, she enthused over
> how smart it was to escape the collar. But both Urrea's wife and Urrea
> himself observed her releasing the dog.
> (Source: E-mail to the author from Luis Urrea dated September 7, 2003.)
>
> <Quote off>
>
> Doesn't speak well for her credibility, does it?
>
>
>
>
>>and then just quotes her
>>without providing any evidence that what she's saying isn't accurate.
>
>
>
>>22) In his section on Mormonism, he seems to assume that Mormons would
>>be reading books attacking Mormonism, and thus Judyth obtained her
>>information from such books while she was a Mormon.
>
>
>
> Martin, by the time she was a Mormon, the problems with the Book of
> Abraham were well known AMONG MORMON SCHOLARS.
>
> http://nowscape.com/mormon/papyrus/by_his_own_hand.htm
>
> Not to say that they all accepted that the "translation" was bogus, but
> any serious Mormon scholar (which Judyth claims to have been) would have
> know about the questions.
>
>
>
>>23) He makes his usual silly references to "Team Judyth," and proceeds
>>to speak with authority regarding what Howard Platzman and I have and
>>haven't done--a subject about which he knows next to nothing. He falsely
>>states that certain information has never been verified. He refers to us
>> as working on "the big score," which is a gross misrepresentation of
>>our activities.
>
>
>
> Have you been trying to get a book contract?
>
>
>
>>He also repeats his own mythical characterization of the
>>Dallas conference incident as though it were established fact.
>
>
>
> The e-mail of Platzman pleading earnestly with her not to go has been
> posted right here.
>
>
>
>>24) He ridicules her account of the "green glass," noting that she said
>>her daughter threw out a note that was in the glass. Her daughter, in
>>fact, recallrf the incident, and how upset her mother was that she had
>>thrown out the note--odd, if it was just an old "receipt," as McAdams
>>suggests it was.
>
>
> Who knows why she was upset, Martin?
>
> It's just that all of Judyth's really *good* evidence has somehow
> disappeared.
>
>
>
>>25) She was known in New Orleans as Judyth Vary, and later used her
>>married name Judyth Baker--as well as a pen name in some writings--but
>>McAdams assumes that any visibility at all under the latter two names
>>disproves any idea that she was "in hiding." Of course, she has never
>>claimed she was "in hiding" during those years--just that she was
>>avoiding any indication of association with Oswald.
>
>
>
> Martin, you mean the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy, with all their
> resources, could not discover that "Judyth Vary" married Robert Baker?
>
> BTW, do her employment papers at Reily show her as "Judyth Baker" or
> "Judyth Vary?"
>
>
>
>>26) He admits that her first agent was "shopping around" her manuscript
>>by April 1999, and yet expects us to believe that she has made
>>significant changes in her account since that time--as though no one
>>would notice who had seen the original manuscript.
>
>
>
> Precisely. Most publishers aren't buffs. They look at what comes over
> the transom. It's exceedingly doubtful that some editor, having
> rejected the manuscript four or five years ago, will notice when the
> book comes out, will read it, and will remember that she has changed a
> lot of stuff around.
>
> The blunder you made was to share the manuscript and outline with
> researchers. They *are* buffs. They *do* remember what they were told
> and notice when the story has been changed.
>
>
>
>>27) He repeats the false claim that "Most of the people with whom she
>>has shared her story have come away skeptical"--in fact, he doesn't
>>really know with whom she has shared it, and so has no definite group on
>>which to base a claim of "most." This is more mumbo-jumbo.
>>
>
>
> Why don't you give us a lot of names beside Team Judyth who believe her?
>
>
>
>>In short, McAdams' "critique" is a mixture of re-hashed claims, his own
>>opinions, material from his own website, incestuous exchanges of opinion
>>with his fellow Judyth-haters, quotes from uncorrrected drafts, and
>>misrepresentations of her own account. McAdams could have waited for the
>>definitive account--but then it might get published before he could
>>stage his pre-emptive strike.
>>
>
>
> Hurts to have an extended critique all in one place, doesn't it Martin?
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>
> Why should somebody conceal data about the Judyth account? You were
> touting Judyth as a dandy "new witness" until you begin to get
> questioned about her.
>
> So it's alright for you to invoke her testimony, but wrong for others to
> debunk her?
>
> .John
>
Deb Bert
...
> If the statements came first, and the offer of compensation later,
> that raises the possibility that Anna was telling Team Judyth
> "interesting" things to curry favor with them, in the hope of later
> asking for money.
A "possibility" isn't proof of anything. It's conjecture,
speculation. Oh. Sorry. I forgot--that's what you do best, Doc.
...
> Her asking for money would carry the implicit threat that her
> testimony might be withdrawn if Team Judyth didn't cough up the cash,
> and the implicit promise that more "interesting" testimony might be
> forthcoming if they did.
It's positively fascinating the way you have this omnicient power,
Doc. Was that "gift" acquired via MKULTRA shanaigans?
> Isn't it true that her story has gotten "better" since Team Judyth
> promised her a share of the proceeds?
>
> .John
Doc--
Why do you not wish to respond to the *fact* of injectible cancer? Is
it because you got caught professing .... ummm...untrue information?
I repeat--
TITLE OF PROJECT: ALLOGENIC GLIOMA IN IMMUNE COMPETENT DOGS
Principal Investigator: Michael Berens
Subjects: Dogs (female beagles and their puppies)
Funding agency: NIH through NINDS (National Institute of Neurological
Disorders and Stroke)
*****Objectives of research: 1) To implement a procedure for injecting
cancer cells (glioma cells) into unborn puppies at a time when their
undeveloped immune systems will not reject the cells. *****
2) To use this procedure for developing an animal model that will
develop malignant brain tumors.
3) To study the course of these brain tumors in dogs.
4) To study different courses of therapy on the dogs including
irradiation, chemotherapy and surgical excision.
*******5) To sell the patented procedure for injecting the cancer
cells into
fetal puppies and "tricking" their immune systems into accepting the
cancer cells.********
6)To use the dogs and puppies with brain tumors in toxicity testing
for cancer treatments.
******************************
Just for your info., Doc-- in cancer research where mice are used, the
mice's (meeses?) immune systems are frequently chemically impaired so
that the cancer will take hold and replicate easier (and faster and
more reliably). Kind of like it does when people suffer from
full-blown AIDS. Cancer is one of those opportunistic little cusses
that survives much better when the immune system is weakened or
non-existent.
Note Step 5 (one of the objectives of this research) above:
"5) To sell the patented procedure for injecting the cancer cells into
fetal puppies and 'tricking' their immune systems into accepting the
cancer cells."
My God! Who would **buy** a terrifying technology such as this?
Bet you know, don't cha, Doc.
--Deb
Dave Reitzes
>
>>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>>
>>You keep saying that "Martin won't allow it"--that's just nonsense.
>>Lifton has asked JUDYTH to sign a release--the only person who can.
>>Inconvenient for you, I know, but facts are facts.
>>
>>Martin
>
>
>You're not fooling anyone, Martin.
>
>Dave
Judyth,
As you're probably aware, I've asked Martin several times about your
response to Mr. Lifton's challenge, but he has, to date, refused to give
me a straight answer for some reason.
So, Judyth: You've said to me that Mr. Lifton is a liar and a bad, bad
man. Now he has offered to release a tape he claims would damage your
credibility. This is your chance to prove him wrong about you. All you
have to do is sign a waiver, as he described, giving him permission to
release the tape.
Are you or are you not going to take this opportunity, once and for all,
to prove Mr. Lifton's claims about you to be wholly without foundation?
Dave
Dave Reitzes
Thanks for the tip.
Looks like Martin needs to brush up on Judyth's story a bit.
Dave
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>I can express my own opinions, John--I don't need you inventing
>fictional ones for me. I have NEVER criticized Weisberg's actions
>regarding "JFK." Nor Ellsberg. More strawman arguments. You might have
>more credibility, John, if you addressed what I SAID, rather than what
>you want to INTERPRET as my meaning.
>
But you said that my publishing the web page on Judyth was a
"preemptive attack" just like Weisberg's releasing the shooting script
to the WASHINGTON POST.
I take it you really don't mind preemptive attacks?
>Also, I didn't say those in the Acknowledgements were "all evil
>people"--another strawman. I was pointing out that a web page allegedly
>devoted to deterimining WHETHER to believe Judyth seemed to involve only
>people whose position is that one should NOT believe her--one-sided, not
>some sort of forum on the matter.
Martin, the people who believe her are stonewalling!
Only the people who have become disaffected, and decided she it
telling tall tales, are telling what they know.
That's a bit like saying that only people who are critical of the
government ever leak information showing government wrongdoing. Of
*course* those are the people who do that.
>Nor does selectively quoting her make
>it a presentation of both sides, any more than if she put up a web page
>which included selective quotes from you to help make her case.
>
Martin, an essay is an essay, and not a disconnected collection of
testimony. But note that I do have four key documents of hers linked
from the page:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/boring.txt
http://manateehurricane.home.att.net/then3.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/alliance.pdf
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/endofline.pdf
>There is NOT "quite a long list" who have seen her evidence and
>dismissed it. Two of those on your list of ten have seen some of it--as
>far as I can tell, the rest have seen none of it.
Martin, when you say "her evidence" you are taking a pretty
restrictive view of what that would be. Certainly Robert Chapman,
Dennis Frank, Louis Girdler, Paul Hoch, and Dave Reitzes have engaged
in extensive e-mail exchanges with her. A couple of other people who
didn't want to be named in the list have too. So has (apparently)
Tracy Parnell. So has Matt Allison.
Then there is Debra Conway, and Mary Ferrell.
>David Lifton
>specifically declined to examine it. So much for "so many." They were,
>for the most part, attacking her from Day One--so it's not surprising
>that they were willing to help you out with another attack on her.
>
Was Mary Ferrell? Was Debra Conway? Was Matt Allison?
Was Louis Girdler? He was supplying you folks with information!
Was Robert Chapman?
>Again, you express opinions as mine which aren't--at no point did I say
>that "none" of your sources is reliable, nor that they all contradict
>Judyth--neither statement is accurate.
>
>The fact that Cancun is a tourist site doesn't justify relying for
>HISTORICAL information on a tourism website. Sashay, John.
>
Are you saying that Cancun *was* already developed as a major tourist
destination in 1963, Martin?
If so, then perhaps I need a better citation.
But you've *admitted* that what the web site says is true!
>You make the statement that I have "no reason for calling [Rose Baker's}
>account erroneous." That, too, is highly erroneous. Robert Baker sent
>Judyth an e-mail admitting that much of what Rose said was unfounded,
>and she was repeatedly caught on the newsgroup making statements which
>were contradicted by the contemporary documentary evidence--including
>letters and postcards written by her husband, news articles, etc. The
>fact is that Rose is not a reliable source on Judyth's account--partly
>because she has no first-hand knowledge of anything relating to it.
>
So far as I can remember, I only quote Rose on Judyth's mutts.
Do you deny that her "American Cream Dog" is merely the offspring of a
mutt she brought back from Norway?
Where *did* the "breed" come from?
If you don't believe Rose about that, please explain that.
>Thanks for identifying "ihateliars" as Matt Allison--something he's
>never admitted publicly. I would guess that he used the pseudonym to
>post things he was reluctant to be associated with.
>
Huh? He posted stuff that Judyth named Antonio Veciana as one of the
people she or Lee had contact with in New Orleans.
Do you deny that she said that? Is Veciana *not* part of her story?
>With regard to Rosselli and Ragano, Rich was mistaken. He would only be
>lying if he knew that he was wrong and said it anyway. I don't know that.
>
OIC. He's mistaken.
How come so very many people are "mistaken" about what Judyth told
them?
>I'm not prepared to take your word for what Mary Ferrell told Joe Biles.
You're not propared to accept anything that reflects badly on Judyth.
Do you think Joe hallucinated that?
>Mary told at least six other people that she DIDN'T write the e-mail,
>and speculated about the person she believed had written it.
>
I posted the headers on the newsgroup. You folks said it somehow got
waylaid in California, but the headers went direct from Mary's ISP to
Marquette's e-mail server.
Then you changed you story and started saying that Robert Chapman got
control of Mary's computer.
The fact that some of your buddies managed to browbeat a sick old
woman into a recantation can't change the fact that Mary reputiated
Judyth's story.
>No one has ever denied that Judyth's agent was circulating a manuscript
>for possible publication. Citing Amy Reiter on the matter only
>encourages people to go to a source which is unreliable on almost
>everything else relating to Judyth.
>
OIC. I should have *failed* to list a source for this.
Martin, the fact that Judyth hired a sleazy agent who put out
misinformation says a lot about her.
>If your information is based on the opinion's of "medical people," I
>would suggest naming and quoting them. As for David Lifton's opinion
>being "based on a lot of evidence"--he initially based it on a single
>phone call, whatever evidence he may have looked at later. When the
>"conclusion" is what you BEGIN with, I'd call it an opinion. Fetzer
>operates the same way.
>
Lifton talked to her for something like an hour, if memory serves.
And we are all waiting for permission to post the audio of that call.
>Do I know the sequence in New Orleans regarding the videotaping and the
>discussion of helping out Anna financially at some point? Yes. I was
>there, John. I KNOW what the sequence was--there is absolutely NO doubt.
>Lifton sent me a copy of the statement from Louis on this matter--it is
>without credibility. In it, Howard's physical responses are
>described--but Louis HAS NEVER MET HOWARD. Here is what Lifton forwarded:
>"Notice [below] how our credulous Wimmeister has bought into the
>fictitious claims of Haslam and Anna Lewis. In a [foot-shuffling, head
>down, eye-shifting] conversation with me, Howard Platzman admitted that
>he offered Anna Lewis part of the take [$$] from Judyth's book in
>exchange for her video taped interview. In response to my question
>"Why on earth would you offer her money -- knowing that offer would
>taint her testimony!!?" Howard responded simply that she needed it.
>Just like Judyth?
>
>Louis"
Martin, Louis' use of "foot-shuffling, head down, eye-shifting" is his
characterization of the mode and tone of Platzman's admission.
Do you expect us to believe that Louis was just lying about the
conversation?
Even if the money offer came after the taping, that's still a huge
problem for you folks, since it implies that Anna Lewis was telling
you what you wanted to hear because she was hoping to get some money.
IOW, you didn't bribe her, she hustled you.
>NOTE that Louis doesn't actually say the money discussion came BEFORE
>the taping--he just assumes it. As for the physical description, of
>course, that part could be one of Lifton's typical nasty little
>fictions. There was, however, NO discussion of money BEFORE the taping.
>
>Yes, Harris is mistaken. Not "now," always on these matters, as I have
>posted previously. Your idea of asking Robert if he is confused about
>this is nutty--he posted it, of COURSE he thinks he isn't confused--but
>he is anyway.
Martin, there are *so* many people who are "mistaken" about what
Judyth told them.
But what about all those e-mails she sent out, many of which I quote
in the article?
>This is nothing new--nor is your habit of ignoring
>inconvenient information contrary to what you want to believe about
>Judyth.
You haven't produced information, Martin. You have only given denial
after denial.
>That's the whole tenor of your webpage about her, which is why I
>would consider it disgraceful that it was posted by an academic. There
>is nothing academic about it. It's a partisan rant.
>
You're not qualified to evaluate it, Martin.
>"she didn't bother" to find the Oswald writings? No, John, she was going
>through 40 boxes of material--she hadn't YET located them until she DID
>locate them. Perhaps you can get your mind around that concept--chronology.
>
Martin, it's just not plausible that somebody would "go public," write
a book, hustle "60 Minutes," send out "Deadly Alliance" *without*
bothering to locate the one sort of evidence that might actually
convince skeptical people.
>Congratulations on yet another strawman argument--you cited Robert Baker
>as saying she got the Reily job when she was tired of flipping burgers.
>There is no dispute that she had an earlier job at a burger place.
Glad you admit that.
>But
>you take the sequence "burger joint-Reily" and seek to turn it into
>evidence that she had no help getting the Reily job. That's a very
>strange concept of evidence, John, and won't wash.
>
He husband remembers her as being tired of flipping burgers.
Do you have any evidence of her being "set up" for the Reily job?
>Another strawman argument follows--I note Robert Baker's remarkably poor
>memory. You imply that Judyth's must be equally bad, because you compare
>the two on a direct basis. Another example of non-evidence masquerading
>as "solid argument."
>
>Regarding the high school cancer research, I appreciate the
>clarification--you are offering YOUR medical opinion on the quality of
>her research, and I've already commented on what that's worth.
>
Martin, when you let mice get loose and the experimental and control
groups get mixed up, that rather blows the value of the experiment.
Even us social scientists know that.
>Ochsner was mentioned "because he was a medical guy" and mentioned by
>Haslam? Why not just talk about Dr. Mary Sherman?
Because Ochsner is in the Haslam book.
And because Ochsner was an anti-Communist and that could be used to
tie him to all kinds of sinister stuff.
Your buddy Platzman is actually saying he had a school for making
doctors into assassins!
And then there is the fact that Garrison was about to arrest him.
>Your "explanation"
>explains nothing, John. Nor do you help by trying to use your fallacious
>assumption, that "she has used Haslam as a major source for her tale" as
>supporting "evidence" for your argument. Logic doesn't work that way,
>John. And you follow that with another "evidentiary" item: "I think."
>And "you folks have painted a grotesque caricature of Ochsner"? Another
>McAdams opinion, like too much of your "evidence."
>
That he was a humanitarian who was widely respected is an established
fact, Martin.
You need to quit calling facts "opinions."
You folks are so isolated in your little buff world that you know
basically nothing about him but the things published in buff books.
>Quite a few people have pointed out the logical fallacy of assuming that
>a document is accurately reporting the facts simply because it was once
>classified. No need to dwell on the point.
>
You have no evidence that Banister ever worked for the CIA, do you?
>In 1975, we learned that the CIA was doing a lot of "absurd" things. It
>is not enough for you to believe something absurd--that doesn't make it
>untrue.
>
Sloppy logic, Martin. They weren't doing absurd things. Some of the
things they were doing were immoral. And some were forced on them by
the president (Castro plots).
But they never did anything as silly as give an "MK/ULTRA Manual" to a
Dallas strip club owner.
Hell, probably very few people even within the Agency knew about the
project.
>Judyth has made errors on some matters about which she had no direct
>personal knowledge. So have we all. Another sashay, John.
>
No, in most cases she didn't "make errors." She just made stuff up.
>It is true that Judyth has picked up a fair amount of assassination
>literature information--the point I was making is that she still hasn't
>reached the level of knowledge that would be necessary to do what you
>and Lifton have accused her of doing--"inserting" herself into the
>record.
Good heavens, Martin. She read about the Minox thing, and she
"remembered" Oswald with a Minox. She knew the light meter was an
issue, and she added that Oswald's Minox was "so sensitive" that it
didn't need a light meter.
She read that Greer slowed the limo when the first shots were fired.
So she has Lee tell her that the plotters expect Greer to slow.
It doesn't take huge knowledge to do something like this.
>And the detail that you AVOID is that when she first sat down
>and wrote her account for Dr. Riehl, she knew almost nothing about the
>assassination literature.
So she said, and you guys bought it.
>It didn't take me long to realize that--and I
>think you know me well enough by now to know that I could easily spot
>someone with very little grasp of the literature.
>
Martin, I'm not at all convinced you could spot somebody who feigned
ignorance, while knowing a bunch of tidbits to toss your way.
Were you really impressed when she told you that "Sparky" had the end
of one finger missing?
That's in the WCR!
>You repeat the claim that Judyth embraces Garrison's case
>wholeheartedly. That's just nonsense, John, and may show how little you
>really know about her ACTUAL account--and how much you are reading into
>what little you know. That's something you do frequently, John, and it
>might be worth taking a look at the problem. It does you no good. You
>add that "she accepted the 'case' against Shaw"--not true at all.
>
Did she paint Shaw as a plotter, or not?
>You say that you have "three or four versions" of the outline. There are
>MANY more than that, as it was an organic process. Some errors got
>corrected right away, others were corrected later. If you got them from
>your listed sources, they were all uncorrected drafts. I doubt that you
>got any of them from a publisher--so you don't really KNOW what final
>version went out to publishers.
>
Why don't you post the final version that went out to publishers?
Martin, your lame excuses are wearing thin.
You just have to make too many.
>You cite Judyth as mentioning that Lee met Herbert Philbrick, and use
>this as "evidence" for the silly "Hoch Ratio Test" (which Hoch himself
>presented as a speculative idea, not a certain test of anything), and
>meaning her account is unreliable. What evidence do you have that Lee
>DIDN'T meet Philbrick?
>
Lee never attended any INCA event!
>Your statement that "a lot of familar names are just thrown in without
>any organic connection to the account" is EXACTLY what I've been saying
>about the silly overblown list you use in arguing for the "ratio test."
>
Everybody on that silly overblown list is somebody *Judyth* threw into
her account!
She throws half the names in conspiracy books into her account, and
you say it doesn't matter.
>You have a partly corrected chapter draft which still contained errors
>made by her agent--they are still errors, even though they hadn't yet
>been corrected in that draft. Her ORIGINAL account didn't mention
>Cancun. Joe Riehl knows that. You use the term "ancient" as though the
>fact it was older makes it more "Judyth." It was older--and not yet
>fully corrected when it was surreptitiously copied. It was a detail
>added by her agent in HIS draft--it was he who was "spicing up" the
>manuscript, not Judyth. Dr. Riehl has never contradicted this, but you
>believe what you what, as usual. Her earliest account of this matter
>refers to a village in an area where there were Mayan ruins, in which
>she had an interest.
>
Readers will want to look at the following to see that Judyth added
her own "j" signature, and apparently takes credit for writing, the
conversation with the "fine hotel in Cancun."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/endofline.pdf
>"Have you been trying to get a book contract?" Me? No. Are you asking me
>to speak for "Team Judyth," your fictional characterization? I can't
>speak for something that exists only in your mind. Besides, you seem to
>enjoy speaking for that mental entity of yours.
>
>The Dallas Conference: She floated the idea, we all discussed it (the
>e-mail you mention was only one of a long series of messages from
>various people), and she decided it was a bad idea, and dropped it.
Martin, Platzman's e-mail was posted right here.
You guys were frantic.
>Your
>assumption was that we were afraid she would share her account--but
>that's total crap. The way she had it planned, we were concerned that
>she WOULDN'T be able to adequately present her account, and that she
>would appear to be trying to compete with the JFK Lancer conference,
>whose organizer had allied with David Lifton in the attack on her.
>You're entitled to your opinion, John, but facts can be fun sometimes, too.
>
Not when you are a member of Team Judyth.
>"All of Judyth's really 'good' evidence has somehow disappeared." This
>statement is ridiculous--she has plenty of "good" evidence. And weren't
>you arguing earlier that you suspected she had manufactured some of her
>"good" evidence? That seemed to be what you were implying with regard to
>the Oswald writings.
>
Well she certainly claims that she had a note from Oswald in the green
glass, and it's disappeared.
And she claimed a diary showing contemporaneous mention of her affair
with Oswald and perhaps her role in the assassination plot, but the
drug addict landlord of her trailer park home burned it.
If she has all her best evidence, why is she always making excuses for
not having evidence?
>"Evil Minions of the Conspiracy"--do you never tire of attributing silly
>terms like that to others?
>
>Her employment papers at Reily, of course, show her as Judyth Baker.
>Now, please explain what that has to do with how she was known to Ferrie
>and those around him. Another strawman, of course.
>
You mean the Evil Minions didn't *know* she was employed as "Judyth
Baker" at Reily?
But they set her up!
Her boss was one of the conspirators!
>Regarding the manuscript, and your "gotcha" nonsense on that subject,
>you are forgetting that one "buff," Dr. Riehl, saw the ORIGINAL Judyth
>account, posts on the newsgroups, and hasn't bought ANY of your silly
>assumptions. He knows they have no merit.
>
The fact that he still supports Judyth speaks badly for him.
>"Why don't you give us a lot of names beside Team Judyth who believe
>her?" Of course, John--why wouldn't I paint targets for you on everyone
>who supports her? Perhaps because I'm not an idiot. Perhaps because many
>have written privately and in confidence and some of us respect the
>confidence of private e-mail. I could also list the researchers who have
>independently confirmed various aspects of her account--but that's up to
>them, not up to me.
>
But interestingly, a lot of people who disbelieve her *are* willing to
speak out.
And all of your supporters are -- conveniently -- secret.
>"Hurts to have an extended critique all in one place"? Nope. Helps,
>actually. Easier to deal with in one place than with Team McAdams' usual
>scattershot attack posts. I've even sent the URL to some people who know
>your methods, John. Nice recruiting tool. Keep it up.
>
LOL!
Silly bluffs like that don't help you, Martin.
--
Martin Shackelford
Ranting isn't evidence, Dave.
Doesn't Lifton have the tape? Why doesn't he release it? Is he afraid of
something?
I have nothing to do with it, never have, don't plan to.
Martin
Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>>20) Once again, McAdams makes much of a reference to "Cancun" written by
>>Judyth's original agent, and not yet removed from the ancient chapter
>>draft leaked to him after it was surreptitiously copied. He also again
>>assumes that David Lifton can tell the difference between "Cancun" and
>>"Kankun" (the village that existed in 1963) in a phone call.
>
>
>
> Again, David Lifton has offered to Martin to release a tape recording of
> that phone conversation so that others can judge for themselves; but
> Martin has only acted to suppress that tape. Why?
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>>26) He admits that her first agent was "shopping around" her manuscript
>>by April 1999, and yet expects us to believe that she has made
>>significant changes in her account since that time--as though no one
>>would notice who had seen the original manuscript.
>
>
>
> Judyth told me in October 2000 that the manuscript she was shopping around
> contained instances of deliberate disinformation -- "flags," she called
> them. She said this was to help insure against the manuscript being
> "pirated."
>
> You're saying this is not true, Martin?
>
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>From: John McAdams john.m...@marquette.edu
>>
>>Martin Shackelford wrote:
>>
>>>Citing Richard Case
>>>Nagell, he assumes she is referring to Nagell when she only had a vague
>>>recollection of a "Nagy or Nagell." Many researchers will recognized the
>>>name Nagy as well, so it's hardly a given that she heard "Nagell."
>>
>>
>>She is still "spicing up" the account by throwning in names familiar to
>>readers of conspiracy books.
>
>
>
> John, I'm not familiar with Judyth's mention of Nagell. Where's this from?
> (No point in my asking Martin.)
>
> Dave
>
> P.S. Is Martin serious about the "Nagy" thing? \:^)
>
>
Martin Shackelford
gathering of documents together in an informal "manual." She apparently
later used the "manual" shorthand reference with Louis, who came into
all this rather late, and he assumed that it came first, probably quite
honestly. It didn't.
Martin
Louis wrote:
> Martin makes the following inaccurate and VERY misleading statement:
>
> "12) Judyth referred to a group of documents as a sort of informal
> "manual," and sometimes referred in shorthand to them as an "MK/ULTRA
> Manual." Louis Girdler took her literally, and McAdams cites his error
> as a source."
>
> In fact, when I first discussed with Judyth her claim about being
> shown [by David Ferrie] the MK/ULTRA "Manual," I asked pointed
> questions about (e.g.) what the cover of the manual looked like, how
> it was marked, bound, the color of the cover, how the pages were
> marked, what security classification was on the cover of the manual
> and on the pages, etc. When I had asked these specific questions
> about the "manual" [I have handled Top Secret documents and she knew
> it], Judyth became very defense and asked why I was asking all of
> these specific questions. DUH! I suggested that if she in fact was
> shown this highly classified manual – with her "astonishing memory" –
> she would recall the details of the "manual." She declined to provide
> any. She then suggested that I send Martin my description of what the
> document should look like and she would do likewise and then Martin
> could compare them!
>
> I thought this was silly and an obvious dodge to avoid showing her
> ignorance of how highly classified manuals are marked. At no time did she
> ever state or infer that the documents were not bound in a manual. To the
> contrary, she specifically stated that the MK/ULTRA document was a
> "manual." I specifically asked her HOW the MANUAL was bound and she
> declined to answer. At that point she could have stated that it was not
> really a "manual." She did not.
>
> The "loose collection" of papers revision to her story emerged AFTER I
> mentioned my incredulity about the incident to Martin and Howard [MK/ULTRA
> extended over years and consisted of several different projects -- there
> never was a "manual."]. It is this "loose collection" altered version of
> Judyth's story that they now claim is the reality. It's not true.
>
> Louis
> ----------
>
> Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:<bjs1r4$o...@dispatch.concentric.net>...
>
>>I'm trying to remember the last time someone was SO worried about the
>>possible publication of a book that they launched a pre-emptive strike
>>against it. The only parallel that comes to mind is Harold Weisberg's
>>pre-emptive attack on the movie "JFK."
>>In this case, the "Judyth" page of John McAdams' website, is clearly a
>>most one-sided project, as one can see from the last item:
>>
>>Acknowledgments Thanks to the following people who have provided
>>helpful information and critical comments on various drafts of this
>>essay: Joe Biles, Robert Chapman, Dennis Frank, Louis Girdler, Paul
>>Hoch, Robert Johnson, John Leyden, David Lifton, Dave Reitzes, and Paul
>>Seaton.
>>
>>It was also clearly a rush job, as the footnotes are full of typos. Most
>>of the non-footnoted "sources" are simply references to other pages on
>>McAdams' own website, some are other LN websites, and some are
>>references to the HSCA reports, ARRB testimony, or writings by his
>>collaborators listed in the above Acknowledgements. His "historical
>>information" regarding Cancun is sourced to a tourism website.
>>
>>As for the footnotes, some are simply statements of McAdams' own
>>opinions, rather than an independent source. Some are e-mails from
>>individuals listed in the Acknowledgements, all long-time critics of
>>Judyth. He cites David Blackburst, Hugh Aynesworth, Gerald Posner,
>>Patricia Lambert, an e-mail from Judyth's ex-husband (who has repeatedly
>>proven to have a highly unreliable memory with regard to these matters),
>>Rose Baker (his current wife, whose only source was the erroneous
>>recollections of her husband), and the anonymous source "ihateliars."
>>Rich Della Rosa supplied posts from his newsgroup--and when something
>>damaging FROM Judyth couldn't be found, McAdams simply cite's Rich's own
>>posts as sources. He also uses as a source the notorious e-mail that
>>Mary Ferrell has denied writing, and the wildly unreliable 1999 Salon
>>column by Amy Reiter.
>>
>>What is the "substance" of McAdams' "critique" of Judyth?
>>1) He admits that she was "an excellent science student," but notes that
>>Robert Johnson was able to find a classmate who has considered her
>>"weird" (big whoop!).
>>2) McAdams' own opinions make up a significant portion of the
>>"evidence"--the cancer project is "farfetched," this poli sci prof's
>>medical opinions about cancer, another element is "unlikely," something
>>else "appears to be" (a frequent phrase), another "must be derived
>>from," another is "difficult to understand," etc. David Lifton's opinion
>>(based on a single phone call) become "as David Lifton has pointed
>>out"--again, an opinion is cited as evidence.
>>3) He seeks to discredit Anna Lewis by reporting that she was offered a
>>share of proceeds from the book. He fails to mention that this didn't
>>even come up until AFTER she had been thoroughly interviewed and
>>videotaped, and THEN a conversation resulting in learning of some
>>financial difficulties. Judyth's concern for her is transformed by
>>McAdams into some sort of bribery attempt.
>>4) He cites as further "evidence" statements by Robert Harris, who got
>>one of Judyth's high school classmates mixed up with Anna Lewis, due to
>>a similarity in first names--and presents Robert's error as "proof" that
>>Anna Lewis didn't appear in "early versions" of Judyth's story. In fact,
>>she mentioned Anna BEFORE she communicated with Robert.
>>5) He also makes use of another Harris error--the assumption that
>>meetings after work left Marina "constantly alone at night," though
>>Judyth has always been clear that Lee went home each night to Marina.
>>6) McAdams assumes, as usual, that anything that hasn't been vomited
>>forth at his request doesn't, therefore, exist--that nothing is being
>>saved for the book that he doesn't know about. He is, as usual,
>>incorrect in this assumption.
>>7) He has made much of the fact that she didn't mention Lee's writing in
>>early e-mails. She had 40 boxes of materials, and at that point she
>>didn't know whether the writing was there or had been thrown out. Once
>>she located it, she mentioned it. She didn't want to cite evidence she
>>wasn't sure she still had.
>>8) He accepts Robert Baker's account of how she got the Reily job,
>>though he was on a boat in the Gulf of Mexico at the time, and his
>>account is contradicted by the documentary evidence. He also accepts
>>that Baker remember's Judyth's exact words in talking about Lee Oswald
>>at the time of the assassination--despite Baker's repeated errors of
>>memory on even general items.
>>9) He accepts the opinions of some of her classmates on the quality of
>>her high school cancer research--no clue as to whether they have even
>>the slightest qualifications to evaluate it.
>>10) He attributes mention of Dr. Alton Ochsner as left-leaning "reverse
>>McCarthyism"--he must have been named simply because he was
>>anti-communist. This begs the question: Why him? New Orleans was FULL of
>>anti-communists. And McAdams suggests that because he was "a
>>humanitarian," he couldn't have been involved in an anti-Castro
>>plot--perhaps his silliest argument yet.
>>11) Was Guy Banister involved with the CIA? McAdams tells us that the
>>CIA says no--who could doubt them?
>>12) Judyth referred to a group of documents as a sort of informal
>>"manual," and sometimes referred in shorthand to them as an "MK/ULTRA
>>Manual." Louis Girdler took her literally, and McAdams cites his error
>>as a source.
>>13) The only source on whether Ruby was called "Sparky" turns out to be
>>Hugh Aynesworth.
>>14) Anything that appears anywhere in the literature or on the Internet
>>is assumed to have been the basis for its appearance in Judyth's
>>account. This serves McAdams in two ways: he can dismiss anything for
>>which evidence can't be found, and he can dismiss anything for which
>>evidence CAN be found by saying she got it second-hand from that source.
>> He portrays a Judyth who has a far greater grasp of assassination
>>literature and documentation that any researcher I've encountered--not
>>at all the Judyth I know, who is very much a novice in that regard.
>>15) He claims that, with regard to Garrison's claims, Judyth "embraces
>>it wholeheartedly", which is simply not true--in fact, very MUCH not
>>true. Later, he himself cites some of the differences between Garrison's
>>claims and Judyth's account.
>>16) He cites various factual errors that she has made regarding
>>information that would not have come from her personal knowledge--not at
>>all surprising. He tries, however, to use this to discredit her own
>>recollections, as though there was no difference between the two.
>>17) Referring to an uncorrected outline he has obtained, he attributes
>>every statement to Judyth, though some are characterizations by Howard
>>Platzman--and some of those were later corrected. The same is true of an
>>uncorrected "draft chapter" on which he relies heavily.
>>18) As in his win-win approach to evidence, McAdams considers any
>>mention of a name already in the literature as "evidence" of Judyth's
>>unreliability. To get the point across, he includes names which are only
>>casually mentioned, and implies that they are relevant to her
>>account--another misleading effort. One name, for example, is Herbert
>>Philbrick--whom Judyth has never claimed as part of her account. McAdams
>>is in such a rush to create a list that he provides no real evidence
>>that Judyth refers significantly to many of them. Citing Richard Case
>>Nagell, he assumes she is referring to Nagell when she only had a vague
>>recollection of a "Nagy or Nagell." Many researchers will recognized the
>>name Nagy as well, so it's hardly a given that she heard "Nagell."
>>19) Again in lieu of evidence, McAdams cites Rich Della Rosa's
>>characterization of her as a "Forrest Gump" of the assassination, and
>>continues to cite "the Paul Hoch ratio test" as though it were a law of
>>science--though in the paper McAdams cites, Hoch says "I suspect" that
>>it might be "a useful measure." Not only does McAdams elevate it to
>>certainty, but he goes on to refer to "a corollary" of the "test." This
>>is all mumbo-jumbo of the rankest sort.
>>20) Once again, McAdams makes much of a reference to "Cancun" written by
>>Judyth's original agent, and not yet removed from the ancient chapter
>>draft leaked to him after it was surreptitiously copied. He also again
>>assumes that David Lifton can tell the difference between "Cancun" and
>>"Kankun" (the village that existed in 1963) in a phone call.
>>21) He makes much of her dog breeding, apparently considering himself an
>>expert on the subject, offers one anecdote, and then just quotes her
>>without providing any evidence that what she's saying isn't accurate.
>>22) In his section on Mormonism, he seems to assume that Mormons would
>>be reading books attacking Mormonism, and thus Judyth obtained her
>>information from such books while she was a Mormon.
>>23) He makes his usual silly references to "Team Judyth," and proceeds
>>to speak with authority regarding what Howard Platzman and I have and
>>haven't done--a subject about which he knows next to nothing. He falsely
>>states that certain information has never been verified. He refers to us
>> as working on "the big score," which is a gross misrepresentation of
>>our activities. He also repeats his own mythical characterization of the
>>Dallas conference incident as though it were established fact.
>>24) He ridicules her account of the "green glass," noting that she said
>>her daughter threw out a note that was in the glass. Her daughter, in
>>fact, recallrf the incident, and how upset her mother was that she had
>>thrown out the note--odd, if it was just an old "receipt," as McAdams
>>suggests it was.
>>25) She was known in New Orleans as Judyth Vary, and later used her
>>married name Judyth Baker--as well as a pen name in some writings--but
>>McAdams assumes that any visibility at all under the latter two names
>>disproves any idea that she was "in hiding." Of course, she has never
>>claimed she was "in hiding" during those years--just that she was
>>avoiding any indication of association with Oswald.
>>26) He admits that her first agent was "shopping around" her manuscript
>>by April 1999, and yet expects us to believe that she has made
>>significant changes in her account since that time--as though no one
>>would notice who had seen the original manuscript.
>>27) He repeats the false claim that "Most of the people with whom she
>>has shared her story have come away skeptical"--in fact, he doesn't
>>really know with whom she has shared it, and so has no definite group on
>>which to base a claim of "most." This is more mumbo-jumbo.
>>
>>In short, McAdams' "critique" is a mixture of re-hashed claims, his own
>>opinions, material from his own website, incestuous exchanges of opinion
>>with his fellow Judyth-haters, quotes from uncorrrected drafts, and
>>misrepresentations of her own account. McAdams could have waited for the
>>definitive account--but then it might get published before he could
>>stage his pre-emptive strike.
>>
>>Martin
>>
>>John McAdams wrote:
>>
>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>>>
>>>.John
>>>
>>>--
>>>The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
Martin Shackelford
been trying to propagate. The taping came first, and later money was
discussed--unconnected to the taping. At no point was it more than a
general discussion, and at no point did Anna Lewis receive any money as
a result of the conversation. Louis here seems to be attempting to still
find something sinister in all this, but there was no such sense among
any of the principals.
Martin
LTG wrote:
> Louis
> ------------
>
Martin Shackelford
statement stands as her account of things. Period.
I'm disgusted at your attempt to salvage this tattered
misrepresentation. It bears no resemblance to what happened. Live with it.
Martin
John McAdams wrote:
> If the statements came first, and the offer of compensation later,
> that raises the possibility that Anna was telling Team Judyth
> "interesting" things to curry favor with them, in the hope of later
> asking for money.
>
> The situation might be a bit like Delphine Roberts and Tony Summers.
>
> Her asking for money would carry the implicit threat that her
> testimony might be withdrawn if Team Judyth didn't cough up the cash,
> and the implicit promise that more "interesting" testimony might be
> forthcoming if they did.
>
> Isn't it true that her story has gotten "better" since Team Judyth
> promised her a share of the proceeds?
>
> .John
>
> --
Martin Shackelford
he's on YOUR side--just not rabid about it.
Martin
John McAdams wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2003 21:39:53 -0500, deb...@cox.net (Deb Bert) wrote:
>
>
>>John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message news:<3F61FC...@marquette.edu>...
>>...
>>
>>>If she isn't correct about the American Cream Dog being simply the
>>>offspring of a mutt she brought back from Norway, where *did* the
>>>"breed" come from?
>>
>>Doc--What does this have to do with the Kennedy assassination? If
>>you're interested in where breeds come from, write to the AKC or visit
>>the library.
>
>
> If Judyth claimed a new "breed" when in fact all she had was a mutt,
> that doesn't help her credibility, does it?
>
>
>
>>...
>>
>>>Do you deny that what "ihateliars" (apparently Matt Allison) posted was
>>>accurate?
>>
>>Doc--That "L" word is a nasty. I don't think you should be using that
>>word in mixed company.
>>...
>
>
> Notice Martin didn't answer. That's because he was bitching about my
> posting something from "ihateliars" but couldn't contradict what I
> posted.
>
>
>
>>>Was Rich lying when he said that Judyth couldn't describe Roselli and
>>>Ragano correctly?
>>
>>Doc--there you go with that "L" word again. Making it a gerund
>>doesn't help, I'm afraid.
>
>
>
> A Sashay(tm) doesn't help, I'm afraid.
>
>
>
>>...
>>
>>>So Harris is now mistaken too, eh?
>>
>>Doc--"Mistaken" --Now there's a genteel word for mixed company.
>>...
>>
>>
>>>Just how *many* people have to be "mistaken" in order for you to accept
>>>Judyth's account?
>>
>>Doc--"Mistaken!" It becomes easier with practice, doesn't it.
>>...
>>
>>>Maybe Bob will jump in and tell he whether he have have been confused
>>>about this.
>>
>>Doc--He who ha-ha ho have? (I think I'm starting to get the hang of
>>this NG-speak....)
>>
>
>
> No, you're not.
>
>
>>.....
>>
>>>>And McAdams suggests that because he was "a
>>>>humanitarian," he couldn't have been involved in an anti-Castro
>>>>plot--perhaps his silliest argument yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't think he would have been involved in a plot to kill a hapless
>>>mental patient.
>>
>>Doc--Really? Do you have any convincing evidence about that? I
>>thought we weren't into taking each other's words on this NG. (You
>>know--cultivating the paranoia thing.)
>>
>
>
>
> The character of any person is relevant to deciding what they might
> and might not have done. That's why buffs always portray
> anti-Communists as scum, so they can "suspect" them as conspirators.
>
>
>
>>>>11) Was Guy Banister involved with the CIA? McAdams tells us that the
>>>>CIA says no--who could doubt them?
>>
>>Doc--Shame on you. Are telling us a...tall tale? Come on now.
>>The truth shall set you free!
>>....
>>
>>
>>>The CIA says "no" in Top Secret documents. You know, the kind you
>>>always wanted released.
>>>
>>>The kind you don't believe, now that they have been released, when they
>>>don't show what you want them to.
>>
>>Doc--get real. The CIA only "releases" what it wants to release when
>>it wants to release it and once it's been sanitized and re-written to
>>portray history the way the CIA wants us all to believe it happened.
>>
>
>
>
> They you think all the people who were demanding "release the
> documents!" were being silly.
>
>
>
>>BTW--do you know of some good reason why we should believe anything
>>the CIA says?
>>
>
>
> You should believe their own internal Secret and Top Secret documents
> when they are telling each other what Garrison might and might not
> find out.
>
>
>
>>.....
>>
>>
>>>Martin, the notion that the CIA would share a bunch of stuff on MK/ULTRA
>>>with Ruby, or Judyth, or anybody else in New Orleans in 1963 is absurd.
>>
>>Yeah, Martin! The CIA never shares the straight dope on anything!
>
>
>
> Sashay(tm)!!
>
> It's absurd to think that the CIA would tell any of the Top Secret
> details about MK/ULTRA to people like Jack Ruby or David Ferrie.
>
> Even if you want to assume (implausibly) that they were CIA
> operatives, they didn't have a "need to know."
>
>
>
>>Grow up, Martin! And the idea that they would share the facts about
>>anything with mere commoners and peons in 1963 is
>>well....it's....ludicrous.
>>
>
>
> Indeed it is.
>
> Why do you think they ever classify things "Top Secret?"
>
>
>
>>(Did I write "straight dope" in the same sentence with CIA? I can't
>>believe I wrote that...)
>>
>>
>>>You need to bone up on the concepts "closely held" and "need to know."
>>
>>Doc--you know those phrases pretty well? I'll bet you do.
>>...
>>Doc--"Martin's being slippery..." Is that another way of calling
>>Martin a fibber?
>>....
>>
>>>Hurts to have an extended critique all in one place, doesn't it Martin?
>>
>>Doc--Is that what you're trying to do? Hurt people?
>>
>
>
>
> If the truth hurts them, yes.
>
>
>
>>>So it's alright for you to invoke her testimony, but wrong for others to
>>>debunk her?
>>
>>....
>>Doc--"to debunk her." Is that another way of calling her
>>a....promoter of falsehoods?
>>....
>>
>
>
> Calling her that, and proving it.
>
> Look, Deb, if you really want to participate in this discussion, you
> need to get engaged, rather than throwing out a bunch of flip
> comments.
>
> One gets the impression that you are emotionally attached to anybody
> telling a conspiracy tale.
>
> Have you actually *read* my essay on Judyth?
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
No contradiction, just two sources of errors.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Altasrecrd
>Thanks for identifying "ihateliars" as Matt Allison--something he's
>never admitted publicly. I would guess that he used the pseudonym to
>post things he was reluctant to be associated with.
>
Yeah, like Judyth for instance.
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
- Hermann Goering
Martin Shackelford
exact parallel.
The book isn't out yet--that's hardly "stonewalling," except on your
side of the looking glass.
Of those you list, Robert Chapman was hostile from the beginning.
She wasn't referring to Cancun, so it's irrelevant what it was in 1963.
There are not "a lot" of people mistaken about what Judyth told them,
but you seem only interested in those who interpret things your way,
whether accurately or not.
Perhaps I'm "not qualified" to evaluate your web page--despite knowing
far more about Judyth than you do. In fact, YOU'RE not qualified to
write the page.
"Her husband remembers"? Her husband's memory is lousy, as he has
repeatedly shown. And he was in the Gulf of Mexico at the time that he
was supposedly gauging her state of mind on this. Garbage in.
The mice COULDN'T have gotten "mixed up." Each group was marked with a
color dye.
As for the usual polemics, I don't have all night.
Martin
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>"The Nagy thing" is acknowledged in McAdams' footnote.
>
The problem, Martin, is that both "Nagell" and "Nagy" are equally
wacky in this context.
Nagell was a crazy man, and Nagy was a respected figure who fought for
democracy in Hungary and was forced out by Communists.
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>I said it was the only parallel I could think of--not that it was an
>exact parallel.
You mean Weisberg? I'd say that releasing information of wide
interest, but which certain promoters don't *want* released is an
exact analogy.
You need to explain why it is somehow bad to write an essay with all
the information presently available on Judyth.
*Especially* when it contains a lot of information that has now been
sanitized out of her book.
>The book isn't out yet--that's hardly "stonewalling," except on your
>side of the looking glass.
Martin, you refuse to give out information, and then bitch when I
write an essay that lacks the "information" that you refuse to give
out.
To be frank, Martin, the most important information is that you guys
now and always will refuse to give out, since it discredits Judyth.
>Of those you list, Robert Chapman was hostile from the beginning.
But did she share a lot of information with him, or not?
>She wasn't referring to Cancun, so it's irrelevant what it was in 1963.
Her manscript said "fine hotel in Cancun."
Here it is.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/endofline.pdf
It's perfectly clear that it was either written by her, or annotated
by her with changes. "Fine hotel in Cancun" is still there.
>There are not "a lot" of people mistaken about what Judyth told them,
>but you seem only interested in those who interpret things your way,
>whether accurately or not.
I've misinterpreted Harris?
>Perhaps I'm "not qualified" to evaluate your web page--despite knowing
>far more about Judyth than you do. In fact, YOU'RE not qualified to
>write the page.
I'm much better qualified to write the page, Martin. You are way too
close to the story. You now have a huge interest in her tale.
>"Her husband remembers"? Her husband's memory is lousy, as he has
>repeatedly shown. And he was in the Gulf of Mexico at the time that he
>was supposedly gauging her state of mind on this.
He was reporting things she told him.
>Garbage in.
>The mice COULDN'T have gotten "mixed up." Each group was marked with a
>color dye.
Only *after* the mice got mixed up.
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>And your EVIDENCE that I've "only acted to suppress the tape"?
>Ranting isn't evidence, Dave.
>Doesn't Lifton have the tape? Why doesn't he release it? Is he afraid of
>something?
You have accused him of breaking the law in taping it. In effect, you
have threatened him with legal action.
>I have nothing to do with it, never have, don't plan to.
>
Well if you refuse to push for its release, you really have no moral
standing to claim that he somehow misrepresented Judyth.
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>No, some errors were left in as "flags," others were added by her agent.
>No contradiction, just two sources of errors.
>
It seems that "flags" is a euphemism for "lies." I don't think you
can show that she had the "flags" excuse *before* somebody discovered
that there was a lot of stuff in there that wasn't true.
So now you are admitting that the early versions of her manuscript --
those circulated to publishers, and to other researchers, were laced
with untruths.
You have three *different* excuses for that.
(1.) Howard did it.
(2.) The agent did it.
(3.) Judyth put them there as "flags."
You really shouldn't have been circulating materials that -- you now
admit -- were thoroughly corrupt.
Frankly, I think all these excuses were thought up *after* the
"errors" were discovered.
>Martin
>
>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 13 Sep 2003 01:03:42 -0500, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>>>>26) He admits that her first agent was "shopping around" her manuscript
>>>>by April 1999, and yet expects us to believe that she has made
>>>>significant changes in her account since that time--as though no one
>>>>would notice who had seen the original manuscript.
>>>
>>>
>>>Judyth told me in October 2000 that the manuscript she was shopping around
>>>contained instances of deliberate disinformation -- "flags," she called
>>>them. She said this was to help insure against the manuscript being
>>>"pirated."
>>>
>>>You're saying this is not true, Martin?
>>>
>>
>>
>> My, my, it appears that we have two contradictory versions of why
>> things that were untrue were in the manuscript.
>>
>> .John
>>
>> --
>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
--
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>The first I heard of this was her description of it, which was a
>gathering of documents together in an informal "manual." She apparently
>later used the "manual" shorthand reference with Louis, who came into
>all this rather late, and he assumed that it came first, probably quite
>honestly. It didn't.
>
Martin, it defies credibility that the CIA would show MK/ULTRA
documents to even *real* CIA operatives working on some entirely
different Top Secret project.
That they would show them to the rag-tag bunch that Judyth claims as
coconspirators is wild in the extreme.
.John
--
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>No, John, it ISN'T true that her story "got better." The videotaped
>statement stands as her account of things. Period.
>I'm disgusted at your attempt to salvage this tattered
>misrepresentation. It bears no resemblance to what happened. Live with it.
>
Well, I'm glad, Martin that you did admit discussion of financial help
for Anna Lewis.
As for "tattered misrepresentation:" I say in the essay:
<Quote on>
Anna Lewis’ credibility is further hurt by the fact that researchers
working with Judyth promised her a share of the proceeds from a
successful book.
<Quote off>
That's entirely accurate.
The fact that you guys didn't *intentionally* bribe her doesn't change
the fact that payment taints the testimony. It raises the possibility
that Anna Lewis told you what you wanted to hear in anticipation of
hitting you up for money.
Much the same thing happened to Tony Summers and Delphine Roberts.
BTW, did Judyth talk to her at all before you guys taped her
testimony?
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>This is a more accurate account than what both Lifton and McAdams have
>been trying to propagate. The taping came first, and later money was
>discussed--unconnected to the taping. At no point was it more than a
>general discussion, and at no point did Anna Lewis receive any money as
>a result of the conversation. Louis here seems to be attempting to still
>find something sinister in all this, but there was no such sense among
>any of the principals.
>
They fact that you guys had "no sense" of that is part of the problem.
You seem oblivious to the possibility that she was telling you want
you wanted to hear in anticipation of hitting you up for money.
Faced with such a request from her, you guys would be under a bit of
pressure, since she could always renounce her testimony, or merely
refuse to give you further jucy details.
Peter R. Whitmey
> >From: "Barb Junkkarinen" bar...@ix.netcom.com
> >
> >
> >"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> >> Hi, Tracy.
> >>
> >> Have you been checking into JFKresearch lately? If not, you'll want to
> >> check out an article Rich has uploaded to his "Featured Articles" page,
> >> concerning the claims of Oswald in North Dakota. I believe there will be
> >> other related articles forthcoming.
> >>
> >> Dave
> >
> >Oh please, Dave, don't tell me that old dog is being dragged back onto the
> >track...sigh. But then I guess that's part of the double (triple?) Oswald
> >thing, eh? A simple N.O. interpreted as an N.D. ..... and it's off to the
> >races....but, if I recall correctly, there's something that follows later
> >in those same notes that makes it clear it was Louisiana being talked
> >about??? Is the text of those notes anywhere online?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Barb :-)
>
>
> The article in question deals mainly with witnesses in North Dakota who claim
> they knew Oswald, that sort of thing . . . nothing I see much point in talking
> about these days. I know that Tracy has a particular interest in the subject,
> though. Unless his interest, like mine, has waned.
>
> Dave
>
>
> Perpetual Starlight: Original fiction, music and more
> http://www.reitzes.com
>
> JFK Online: John F. Kennedy assassination
> http://www.jfk-online.com
>>A researcher who lives in Minnesota wrote several articles on the topic
for TFD shortly before Jerry Rose had to dissolve it, but clearly it is a
waste of time. - Peter R. Whitmey
Dave Reitzes
>
>Read the book, Dave.
In other words, no, Martin has no evidence.
Dave
I've told you guys at least a hundred times that
>the evidence will be in the book, not posted on demand here.
>
>Martin
>
>Dave Reitzes wrote:
>
>>>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>>>10) He attributes mention of Dr. Alton Ochsner as left-leaning "reverse
>>>McCarthyism"--he must have been named simply because he was
>>>anti-communist. This begs the question: Why him? New Orleans was FULL of
>>>anti-communists. And McAdams suggests that because he was "a
>>>humanitarian," he couldn't have been involved in an anti-Castro
>>>plot--perhaps his silliest argument yet.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you have any evidence that Ochsner was involved in such a plot?
Dave Reitzes
>And your EVIDENCE that I've "only acted to suppress the tape"?
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------
[...]
Truth or dare?
DSL
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------
Martin
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------
Dave Reitzes
>Not at all, Dave. It's quite true.
Thank you for a direct answer.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>
>On 14 Sep 2003 08:36:01 -0500, Martin Shackelford
><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>"The Nagy thing" is acknowledged in McAdams' footnote.
>>
>
>The problem, Martin, is that both "Nagell" and "Nagy" are equally
>wacky in this context.
>
>Nagell was a crazy man, and Nagy was a respected figure who fought for
>democracy in Hungary and was forced out by Communists.
Nagy would actually be a far wackier name than Nagell in this context.
(Richard Case Nagell at least CLAIMED to have been peripherally involved
with JFK's assassination.)
But the Judyth chapter at your website contains a reasonably detailed
scenario involving Nagell's purported role in the scheme of Judyth's
conspiracy (I'd quote it here were the file not in PDF format), something
Martin cannot explain away as a simple misunderstood word.
Dave Reitzes
>And you're not even fooling yourself.
>
>Martin
Yup, Martin once again proves he has nothing with which to defend his
behavior but the usual evasions and insults.
So let's review once more how Martin has acted to obstruct Lifton's offer
to release the tape:
Dave Reitzes
>Date: 9/13/03 8:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>
>>From: drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
>>
>>>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>>>
>>>You keep saying that "Martin won't allow it"--that's just nonsense.
>>>Lifton has asked JUDYTH to sign a release--the only person who can.
>>>Inconvenient for you, I know, but facts are facts.
>>>
>>>Martin
>>
>>
>>You're not fooling anyone, Martin.
>>
>>Dave
>
>
>
>As you're probably aware, I've asked Martin several times about your
>response to Mr. Lifton's challenge, but he has, to date, refused to give
>me a straight answer for some reason.
>
>So, Judyth: You've said to me that Mr. Lifton is a liar and a bad, bad
>man. Now he has offered to release a tape he claims would damage your
>credibility. This is your chance to prove him wrong about you. All you
>have to do is sign a waiver, as he described, giving him permission to
>release the tape.
>
>Are you or are you not going to take this opportunity, once and for all,
>to prove Mr. Lifton's claims about you to be wholly without foundation?
>
>Dave
Judyth, you said that you would fight to the death for the sake of Lee
Oswald.
Yet you won't even answer my question?
John McAdams
>>From: john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
>>
>>On 14 Sep 2003 08:36:01 -0500, Martin Shackelford
>><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"The Nagy thing" is acknowledged in McAdams' footnote.
>>>
>>
>>The problem, Martin, is that both "Nagell" and "Nagy" are equally
>>wacky in this context.
>>
>>Nagell was a crazy man, and Nagy was a respected figure who fought for
>>democracy in Hungary and was forced out by Communists.
>
>
>Nagy would actually be a far wackier name than Nagell in this context.
>(Richard Case Nagell at least CLAIMED to have been peripherally involved
>with JFK's assassination.)
>
>But the Judyth chapter at your website contains a reasonably detailed
>scenario involving Nagell's purported role in the scheme of Judyth's
>conspiracy (I'd quote it here were the file not in PDF format), something
>Martin cannot explain away as a simple misunderstood word.
>
<Quote on>
We built our castles in the sky because we were young, and we wanted
to believe that Dave Ferrie (so brilliant!) and Lee’s trusted contacts
(so powerful!) would be clever enough to get him out alive, even as
the rogue military, CIA and Texas-centered powers continued to weave a
web around him. The false trails and fake evidence and altered records
that Lee and I had wanted to proliferate so that we could go away and
hide and not be traced turned into a wholesale purging of Lee’s real
identity, until there were two or three of him, at any given time, it
seemed — and by now, these doppelgangers were doing things that would
paint Lee in the worst of lights. Lee himself knew that Richard
Nagell, one of his doppelgangers, had purposely gotten himself
arrested for fear of being set up as a patsy. Nagell carried Lee’s
Hidell name -- a name used by more than one person I had heard
about----and other incriminating ID. Nagell let it be known that he
refused to become a designated patsy. He may have thought Lee was the
real thing, Lee told me— that perhaps Castro had commissioned Lee to
kill the President. Having heard of some of the escape plans that Lee
was trying to form in an attempt, of course, to get out of Dallas
after he had done all he could (and not to kill, but to save, though
Nagell didn;t know that), Richard Case Nagell, fearing he’d be set up
in Lee’s place, may have deliberately got himself arrested and out of
the action.
I have to add that if I had not known this name beforehand, Lee would
not have spontaneously brought it up. But I had seen a name written on
a check-out form, for taking out untraceable guns, in the Newman
Building where Guy Banister’s office was located, and the name “Nagy”
or “Nagell” was scribbled there. Lee at that time said the name was
probably “Nagell”--or maybe Dave Ferrie told me, I no longer recall.
But the name stuck with me because “Nagy” is a Hungarian name
associated with royalty, and I, being one quarter Hungarian,
remembered that little detail and was curious about who the person
might be.
<Quote off>
BTW, in Acrobat, you can click on the "T" to copy test to the
clipboard.
Martin Shackelford
Weisberg: Had a copy of the full script of "JFK", based his
criticism on it.
McAdams: Had fragments provided by people attacking Judyth, based
his criticism on it.
Perhaps, like most others here, you can see the difference.
"a lot of information which has now been 'sanitized' out of her
book"--this is a totally baseless claim, another assumption masquerading
as a fact. You have no idea what was in her original account, or what is
in the final text of her book--thus, NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for the claim.
You continue to insist that an author provide you with the content of
the book PRIOR to publication. Given your track record, no author would
be that stupid, John.
"her manuscript said 'fine hotel in Cancun'"--her AGENT'S VERSION said
that. Citing an uncorrected copy continues to be meaningless, no matter
how many times you do it.
You have indeed misinterpreted Robert Harris--by assuming he got it
right. Odd that you frequently don't assume that about him on other
matters.
I have a "huge interest" in her account? Anyone familiar with your
posting history since 1999 would have to say you also have "a huge
interest" on the same basis--just from an opposing point of view. If she
is proven right, you are going to be a nationally known screwup.
"He was reporting things she told him"? He was reporting things AS HE
REMEMBERED THEM, OR THOUGHT HE DID 35+ YEARS LATER, and often
CONTRADICTED BY HIS OWN CONTEMPORARY WRITINGS and other contemporary
documents.
Wrong to the last, John--dye-coloring the mice was done AS SOON AS THE
GROUPS WERE DETERMINED--not "after the mice got mixed up." Where do you
get this nonsense--contemporary press reports are quite clear on this.
Your "high school classmate" channeled through Robert Johnson got it
wrong, and you accepted it at face value. Great methodology, John.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
assist him in escaping the consequences of his law-breaking?
Propaganda efforts aside, that appears to be the position you and Dave
are taking. So I have "no moral standing" UNLESS I try to help him
escape the consequences of his apparent crime?
I have no standing to take any legal action against him, in case you are
less well versed in the law than common sense would suggest.
By the way, John, do you even know if he broke the law? If he didn't,
this entire line of B.S. you guys have been ladling out is irrelevant.
If he DID break the law, why are you so eager to protect him?
Martin
Martin Shackelford
received from Judyth. Wrong again, John. Once again "What I think" is a
euphemism for "opinion, not data"--close scrutiny of your "expose web
page" shows how heavily this type of "factual data" is represented there.
Martin Shackelford
Martin Shackelford
money, and THEN gave a videotaped statement.
Prior to the time of the videotaped statement--and for some time
afterward, there was NO discussion of any kind about even theoretical
financial assistance.
You made a false claim, your source (Louis Girdler) declined to back it
up, and now the two of you want to invent the concept of an "after the
fact theoretical bribe" which supposedly influenced the contents of a
statement videotaped at least a day before the topic even came up. You
have nothing, John--just another pitiful smear attempt. What was that you
said in another post about "McCarthyism"?
Martin
Martin Shackelford
less than you think you do, John. Louis Girdler wasn't there, Debra
Conway was--odd that the best you can do is Louis' interpretation of a
phone conversation with Howard. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
again wrong, but still won't get pre-publication leaks on demand. Go
fish, Dave.
Martin Shackelford
alleged law-breaker? Is it OK to break the law?
As for people wanting to listen to Judyth, they will find a link on
McAdams' attack page to a tape of Judyth.
Now, once again--why are you pressing for protection for law-breaking?
Truth or Dare, Dave.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
You made a demand, I declined to agree to it, and now you accuse me of
obstruction.
Awfully spoiled, aren't you?
Martin
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>If he has indeed broken the law, you feel that it's my responsibility to
> assist him in escaping the consequences of his law-breaking?
Why would you want to punish him if Judyth was convincing in the phone
call?
Why are you threatening him with the "consequences of his law
breaking" rather than simply acting to get the audio online?
>Propaganda efforts aside, that appears to be the position you and Dave
>are taking. So I have "no moral standing" UNLESS I try to help him
>escape the consequences of his apparent crime?
>
You have no moral standing to dispute his version of what Judyth said
if you impede his getting the audio online.
Why don't you just write Judyth and advise her to sign a waver and
send it to David?
Why shouldn't we all hear the phone conversation?
>I have no standing to take any legal action against him, in case you are
>less well versed in the law than common sense would suggest.
>
>By the way, John, do you even know if he broke the law?
No, and I don't intend to waste good money on a lawyer to find out.
>If he didn't,
>this entire line of B.S. you guys have been ladling out is irrelevant.
You guys accused him of breaking he law.
>If he DID break the law, why are you so eager to protect him?
>
I'm eager for all of us to hear that conversation.
Why aren't you?
Dave Reitzes
>If he has indeed broken the law, you feel that it's my responsibility to
> assist him in escaping the consequences of his law-breaking?
\:^)
Sure sounds like Martin's afraid to find out what's on that tape.
Why? Has he no confidence in Judyth?
>Propaganda efforts aside, that appears to be the position you and Dave
>are taking.
My position is that if Martin believes in his witness, he should have no
reason to obstruct the release of a tape-recorded interview with her.
So I have "no moral standing" UNLESS I try to help him
>escape the consequences of his apparent crime?
>
>I have no standing to take any legal action against him, in case you are
>less well versed in the law than common sense would suggest.
>
>By the way, John, do you even know if he broke the law? If he didn't,
>this entire line of B.S. you guys have been ladling out is irrelevant.
>If he DID break the law, why are you so eager to protect him?
>
>Martin
Looks like I've got another Shackelford excuse for my list. Or does this
one sound too far-fetched?
Dave \:^)
>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 14 Sep 2003 08:35:40 -0500, Martin Shackelford
>> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And your EVIDENCE that I've "only acted to suppress the tape"?
>>>Ranting isn't evidence, Dave.
>>>Doesn't Lifton have the tape? Why doesn't he release it? Is he afraid of
>>>something?
>>
>>
>> You have accused him of breaking the law in taping it. In effect, you
>> have threatened him with legal action.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I have nothing to do with it, never have, don't plan to.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well if you refuse to push for its release, you really have no moral
>> standing to claim that he somehow misrepresented Judyth.
>>
>> .John
>>
>> --
>> Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Dave Reitzes
>"In other words" Dave believes Martin has no evidence. Dave is once
>again wrong, but still won't get pre-publication leaks on demand. Go
>fish, Dave.
>
>Martin
Isn't it funny how Martin has been happy to "leak" claim after claim after
claim about Judyth's story these past four years, only to clam up whenever
the subject of evidence is raised.
Dave
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Why are you and McAdams so eager to press for legal cover to protect an
>alleged law-breaker? Is it OK to break the law?
Is it OK to conceal information?
>
>As for people wanting to listen to Judyth, they will find a link on
>McAdams' attack page to a tape of Judyth.
>
Being given a sympathetic interview by Dutch journalists who neither
know nor care much about the assassination.
Don't you think people have the right to see how she responds to tough
questioning?
>Now, once again--why are you pressing for protection for law-breaking?
>Truth or Dare, Dave.
>
Why are you pressing to conceal information?
--
Dave Reitzes
>Why are you and McAdams so eager to press for legal cover to protect an
>alleged law-breaker? Is it OK to break the law?
>
>As for people wanting to listen to Judyth, they will find a link on
>McAdams' attack page to a tape of Judyth.
>
>Now, once again--why are you pressing for protection for law-breaking?
>Truth or Dare, Dave.
>
>Martin
What a vivid imagination Martin has. Maybe one day he'll write a book of his
own. \:^)
In the meantime, let's get back to that tape Martin is so desperately trying to
intimidate Lifton into suppressing:
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Anna Lewis never made an effort to "hit us up for money." You know far
>less than you think you do, John. Louis Girdler wasn't there, Debra
>Conway was
Huh?
She never hit you up for money, but Debra Conway was there when she
did?
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>I said it was the only parallel I could think of--not that it was an
>exact parallel.
>The book isn't out yet--that's hardly "stonewalling," except on your
>side of the looking glass.
>Of those you list, Robert Chapman was hostile from the beginning.
>She wasn't referring to Cancun, so it's irrelevant what it was in 1963.
>There are not "a lot" of people mistaken about what Judyth told them,
>but you seem only interested in those who interpret things your way,
>whether accurately or not.
>Perhaps I'm "not qualified" to evaluate your web page--despite knowing
>far more about Judyth than you do. In fact, YOU'RE not qualified to
>write the page.
>"Her husband remembers"? Her husband's memory is lousy, as he has
>repeatedly shown. And he was in the Gulf of Mexico at the time that he
>was supposedly gauging her state of mind on this. Garbage in.
>The mice COULDN'T have gotten "mixed up." Each group was marked with a
>color dye.
One of her classmates wrote Robert Johnson with the following
statement:
<Quote on>
I remember Judy well and also the many hours she spent in the biology
lab. I remeber that her interest was especially focused on cancer
research because of the death of her mother from that disease. I may
have the wrong relative though. I also remeber when all the white mice
were let out of their cages and ran all over the science
hall...especially unsettling because they were divided into two groups
to establish a control group.
<Quote off>
Martin, did it *ever* occur to you that maybe Judyth is telling you
things that are untrue?
W. Tracy Parnell
record in many, many places. I do plan to go through it at some point and
see what I can do with it though.
W. Tracy Parnell
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:bk15f8$o...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Cool. Love to see it, Tracy.
>
> Martin
>
> W. Tracy Parnell wrote:
> > Low blow there Martin. Just for that, I think I'll type up a report on
my
> > own experiences with Judyth.
> >
> >
> > W. Tracy Parnell
> >
> >
> > "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > news:bjufi8$n...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> >
> >>Let us know when you and your co-religionists are done patting each
> >>other on the backs.
> >>
> >>Martin
> >>
> >>John McAdams wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 12 Sep 2003 10:44:55 -0500, "W. Tracy Parnell" <Tr...@madbbs.com>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>As your new page makes clear, the answer to the question is-no. Well
> >
> > done!
> >
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Thanks, Tracy!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>W. Tracy Parnell
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
> >>>>news:3f60f7b...@news.alt.net...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
> >>>>>
> >>>>>.John
Dave Reitzes
No pun intended. \:^)
>Subject: Re: Should We Believe Reitzes? Why Is He Trying to Protect Lifton?
>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>Date: 9/15/03 12:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bk3edi$o...@dispatch.concentric.net>
>
>I've neither acted nor obstructed, Dave. This is a totally false charge.
>You made a demand, I declined to agree to it, and now you accuse me of
>obstruction.
>Awfully spoiled, aren't you?
>
>Martin
Poor Martin. He really thinks that by attacking others, he can somehow
redeem his behavior at this newsgroup.
Dave Reitzes
>Date: 9/14/03 8:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
I guess my "friend" has reason to be afraid of what's on Lifton's tape after
all.
Well, as a wise man once pointed out, nowhere are we commanded to forgive our
friends.
Martin Shackelford
an effort at "concealing information," John.
As for needing Lifton's tape to see how she responds to "tough
questioning," as opposed (YOU say) to the Dutch radio interview, you
have apparently forgotten Lifton's description of that phone call, in
which he reported that he "just listened." No mention whatsoever of any
"tough questioning," John. Whatever gave you that idea?
And, guess what, John? You failed to answer my question. Sashay!!
Martin
Martin Shackelford
you saying that Lifton broke the law? And that you want him to be given
permission to do so AFTER THE FACT?
Martin