Re: Should we believe Martin Shackelford?
polly brown
> On Dec 13, 3:15 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 10:47 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 10, 12:19�pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Wrong again, Leyden, and you know it.
> > > > I had an e-mail from Robert Baker stating that he knew of NOTHING that would
> > > > contradict her account.
> > > > I had information from several friends of Marina regarding her reaction to
> > > > Judyth's
> > > > account on the History Channel, and had written to her, but she didn't
> > > > respond.
> > > > The fact that you thrown in Cancun as well shows how weak you know your
> > > > claims are.
>
> > > > Martin
>
> > > So states Martin Shackelford.
>
> > > But should we believe Martin Shackelford?
>
> > >http://www.jfk-online.com/judythshack.html
>
> > Should we believe you? :-0
>
> If you find any errors in my article, you feel free to post them here,
> Polly.
>
Your page is slanted similarly to McAdam's "Judyth" page. It is basically
slanderous. But that's not the point of discussion here. I'm trying to
get some definition as to what your positions are and why you believe you
are capable of posting about Judyth's statements.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
polly brown
> On Dec 14, 3:16 am, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 11:53 pm, steve <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I would like to see these things confirmed or denied by Marina. These
> > > > are things that tend to add definition to some of LHO's actions.
>
> > > well thats a lot better than what you said before. you gave the
> > > impression in your other post that these things WERE CONFIRMED ALREADY.
>
> > Where they are things probably only Marina would know, Marina would
> > have to be the one to confirm them.
>
> and you think she wouldnt have done that by now? after 40+ years of
> wondering? the biggest crime of the century, mabey your lifetime. your
> husband is arrested for the murder of a president and shot 2 days later.
> hundreds of CT's and you wouldnt be jumping at every chance you got to
> find out the truth? how many years has Judyth been public with her
> nonsense?
When the witness is the other woman, it takes on a whole new dimension.
Marina has taken some remarkable steps toward helping uncover information
regarding LHO's innocence. Some of that may have been flawed, such as her
involvement with the authors of OT, but her intentions have been good.
Nobody, however, until Judyth, has stepped forward in such a manner that
Marina's position in relation to Lee could be threatened. If Judyth is in
the picture, what happens to Marina's stature as his widow?
>
>
>
> > > "Marina has been said to have acknowledged that LHO had an affair with
> > > Judyth. Judyth knows a number of things about Marina the public is not
> > > generally aware of. "
>
> > > but like i said, Marina is not going to get together with Judyth because
> > > she knows Judyth is full of it.
>
> > You're speculating. I disagree. I think Marina is wary of Judyth.
> > And I have to wonder if Marina suspected or knew about Judyth long
> > before Judyth came forth.
>
> and who is the one speculating?
Fair enough. However, there are some tantalizing clues. :-)
>
> > > Marina has been searching for an answer to
> > > her questions since she made public her belief in a conspiracy.
>
> > It is interesting how Marina changed her position. I wonder if there
> > is more to that than what she has said.
>
> she has begged at times for someone to come forward. if she
> thought Judyth was that person we would know by now.
I don't agree. She has confirmed the possibility of the affair off-
the-record. She has not wanted to enter the fray as the widow of LHO.
>
> > >she has
> > > looked into many things, y not Judyth? the answer is Judyth is loony.
>
> > Marina may not have been ready to open a Pandora's box. But knowing
> > how tough and tenacious she is, I hope that time will come.
>
> who is speculating again? "may not have been ready to open a Pandoras
> box"? give us a break, she has been BEGGING FOR YEARS for someone to come
> forward with info that would be usefull.
Really? The other woman? Can you imagine what selflessness that would
take? What would happen to all the money Marina has received? Would some
people be demanding it back, to be given instead to Judyth? Would she
have to face new criticism of her time as the wife of LHO and mother of
his children? When another woman knows details of your married life, do
you really want to take that risk and come forward, or just hide and hope
it will all go away?
>are you speculating that after
> 40+ years of Marina wondering what the hell happend, she would sit around
> and twiddle her thumbs if she thought Judyth was not a loon? thats awfully
> wishfull thinking Pam.
It would be a huge step to take. And an unenviable one.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Dave Reitzes
> On Dec 13, 11:39 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13, 3:15 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 11, 10:47 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 10, 12:19�pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Wrong again, Leyden, and you know it.
> > > > > I had an e-mail from Robert Baker stating that he knew of NOTHING that would
> > > > > contradict her account.
> > > > > I had information from several friends of Marina regarding her reaction to
> > > > > Judyth's
> > > > > account on the History Channel, and had written to her, but she didn't
> > > > > respond.
> > > > > The fact that you thrown in Cancun as well shows how weak you know your
> > > > > claims are.
>
> > > > > Martin
>
> > > > So states Martin Shackelford.
>
> > > > But should we believe Martin Shackelford?
>
> > > >http://www.jfk-online.com/judythshack.html
>
> > > Should we believe you? :-0
>
> > If you find any errors in my article, you feel free to post them here,
> > Polly.
>
> Your page is slanted similarly to McAdam's "Judyth" page. It is basically
> slanderous.
So you say. Yet you can't demonstrate even a single error.
As with Martin, we're all just supposed to take your word for
everything!
And, of course, you'd like nothing better than to change the
subject . . .
But that's not the point of discussion here. I'm trying to
> get some definition as to what your positions are and why you believe you
> are capable of posting about Judyth's statements.
>
> Pamela McElwain-Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com
Dave
steve
> On Dec 13, 11:20 pm, steve <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 3:16 am, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 12, 11:53 pm, steve <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I would like to see these things confirmed or denied by Marina. These
> > > > > are things that tend to add definition to some of LHO's actions.
>
> > > > well thats a lot better than what you said before. you gave the
> > > > impression in your other post that these things WERE CONFIRMED ALREADY.
>
> > > Where they are things probably only Marina would know, Marina would
> > > have to be the one to confirm them.
>
> > and you think she wouldnt have done that by now? after 40+ years of
> > wondering? the biggest crime of the century, mabey your lifetime. your
> > husband is arrested for the murder of a president and shot 2 days later.
> > hundreds of CT's and you wouldnt be jumping at every chance you got to
> > find out the truth? how many years has Judyth been public with her
> > nonsense?
>
> When the witness is the other woman, it takes on a whole new dimension.
> Marina has taken some remarkable steps toward helping uncover information
> regarding LHO's innocence. Some of that may have been flawed, such as her
> involvement with the authors of OT, but her intentions have been good.
> Nobody, however, until Judyth, has stepped forward in such a manner that
> Marina's position in relation to Lee could be threatened. If Judyth is in
> the picture, what happens to Marina's stature as his widow?
Marina's stature as his widow? well Pam, she would still be the widow.
unless your suggesting Judyth and Oswald did make that trip to Mexico to
get quickie divorces. what you are saying is the woman who had to handle
her husband being accused of killing the president and himself being
murdered 2 days later couldnt handle that he might(we know he didnt) have
had an affair? and that she would just choose not to look in that
direction even though over the years she has begged for someone with
answers to come forward. its all whishfull thinking on your part. you
already suggested in an earliar post that you believe Marina may have
known about Judyth before Judyth even came forward. i am wondering where
you got that idea?
>
>
>
> > > > "Marina has been said to have acknowledged that LHO had an affair with
> > > > Judyth. Judyth knows a number of things about Marina the public is not
> > > > generally aware of. "
>
> > > > but like i said, Marina is not going to get together with Judyth because
> > > > she knows Judyth is full of it.
>
> > > You're speculating. I disagree. I think Marina is wary of Judyth.
> > > And I have to wonder if Marina suspected or knew about Judyth long
> > > before Judyth came forth.
>
> > and who is the one speculating?
>
> Fair enough. However, there are some tantalizing clues. :-)
clues that Marina knew of Judyth before she even came foreward? do
tell Pam, where do you get this?
>
>
>
> > > > Marina has been searching for an answer to
> > > > her questions since she made public her belief in a conspiracy.
>
> > > It is interesting how Marina changed her position. I wonder if there
> > > is more to that than what she has said.
>
> > she has begged at times for someone to come forward. if she
> > thought Judyth was that person we would know by now.
>
> I don't agree. She has confirmed the possibility of the affair off-
> the-record. She has not wanted to enter the fray as the widow of LHO.
she has confirmed the possibility of the affair off the record?
and you know this how Pam?
>
>
>
> > > >she has
> > > > looked into many things, y not Judyth? the answer is Judyth is loony.
>
> > > Marina may not have been ready to open a Pandora's box. But knowing
> > > how tough and tenacious she is, I hope that time will come.
>
> > who is speculating again? "may not have been ready to open a Pandoras
> > box"? give us a break, she has been BEGGING FOR YEARS for someone to come
> > forward with info that would be usefull.
>
> Really? The other woman? Can you imagine what selflessness that would
> take? What would happen to all the money Marina has received? Would some
> people be demanding it back, to be given instead to Judyth?
i find that argument an insult to Marina, as well as her and Oswalds
children. unless you can name any kids Oswald had with Judyth. Judyth was
Married at the time in case you forget. i think it would actually make the
public twice as sympathetic to Marina as they have been up to this point.
its all a usless argument anyway because Judyth is full of it from the get
go. Marina understands that, its a shame some who post here dont.
Would she
> have to face new criticism of her time as the wife of LHO and mother of
> his children? When another woman knows details of your married life, do
> you really want to take that risk and come forward, or just hide and hope
> it will all go away?
if it means putting 40+ years of misery to rest, i think she would say
so. why wouldnt she? the cats out the bag as far as you and Team Judyth
are concerned. if she knew it was true she woulod have to accept it.
eventually the media would pick up the story, and Marina would look like a
fool AGAIN for denying it, but they havent. i wonder why that is. you
think it has anything to do with that head doctor that looked at Judyth
for 60min right before they dropped her like a hot potato?
>
> >are you speculating that after
> > 40+ years of Marina wondering what the hell happend, she would sit around
> > and twiddle her thumbs if she thought Judyth was not a loon? thats awfully
> > wishfull thinking Pam.
>
> It would be a huge step to take. And an unenviable one.
it would be a step to take if it were true, but no one can produce
anything to even suggest Judyth was involved with anything related to the
assassination of JFK or the attempted assassination of Castro. no one can
produce anything that says she knew Ochsner, Ferrie, Sherman, Shaw, Ruby
or any other alleged assassination conspirator.
>
> Pamela McElwain-Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
JLeyd...@aol.com
>I don't agree. She has confirmed the possibility of the affair off-
>the-record. She has not wanted to enter the fray as the widow of LHO.
I do wish you and Shackelford would stop making this claim unless you can
provide the names of your sources. Neither of you have had any contact
with Marina or her supposedly talkative friends. This is pure fiction on
your parts.
JGL
polly brown
Let me clarify. Its premise, as well as its content, are designed to
promote error.
>
> As with Martin, we're all just supposed to take your word for
> everything!
That from the expert on the concept.
>
> And, of course, you'd like nothing better than to change the
> subject . . .
Defining your position is important to understanding why you have
written a disinfo page. You don't object to that, do you?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Dec 15, 12:01 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 8:39 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 13, 11:39 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 13, 3:15 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Dec 11, 10:47 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Dec 10, 12:19?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
Hi Pamela,
Could you please provide quotes from the page that you consider
"disinfo."?
Thanks.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Dec 13, 11:20 pm, steve <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 3:16 am, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 12, 11:53 pm, steve <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > I would like to see these things confirmed or denied by Marina. These
>> > > > are things that tend to add definition to some of LHO's actions.
>>
>> > > well thats a lot better than what you said before. you gave the
>> > > impression in your other post that these things WERE CONFIRMED ALREADY.
>>
>> > Where they are things probably only Marina would know, Marina would
>> > have to be the one to confirm them.
>>
>> and you think she wouldnt have done that by now? after 40+ years of
>> wondering? the biggest crime of the century, mabey your lifetime. your
>> husband is arrested for the murder of a president and shot 2 days later.
>> hundreds of CT's and you wouldnt be jumping at every chance you got to
>> find out the truth? how many years has Judyth been public with her
>> nonsense?
>
>When the witness is the other woman, it takes on a whole new dimension.
>Marina has taken some remarkable steps toward helping uncover information
>regarding LHO's innocence. Some of that may have been flawed, such as her
>involvement with the authors of OT, but her intentions have been good.
>Nobody, however, until Judyth, has stepped forward in such a manner that
>Marina's position in relation to Lee could be threatened.
Threatened? Marina was Oswald's life; she bore his children. Nothing
... and no body can threaten that position.
> If Judyth is in
>the picture, what happens to Marina's stature as his widow?
Tell me you are kidding!? Marina was, and forever will be, his widow.
Oh my/ Beyond preposterous!
Oh yes, I can see it now ... people pounding on the poor little
confused and bewildered immigrant wife with the 2 babies' door
demanding their moey back so they could give it to the conniving
cheating bride who was developing a vicious weapon to kill Castro and,
in the process, used and killed a patient at a mental hospital to test
her bioweapon....not to mention that she had vast foreknowledge of the
plot to kill JFK and did nothing to stop it.
Pamela, please, check your gyro ... something is terribly askew with
your orientation!
Barb :-)
Dave Reitzes
Martin Shackelford
my information from a prominent British researcher who was sitting next to
Marina when she watched 'The Love Affair." You, in contrast, have no
information, just uninformed prejudice. Your claim that the information is
"pure fiction" is pure, sourceless nonsense.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:22e5da9e-0c36-40eb...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2007 20:40:52 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
I'm beginning to wonder who has the more vivid imagination, Judyth or
Pamela.
Dave
polly brown
Nice try, Dave. Martin doesn't have any smear pages on the net. That
automatically puts his statements into a different category than yours.
I object to your entire page. It is simply disinfo. Its focus is
extremely narrow and does not look at all alternatives, thus causing it to
fall prey to the fallacy of false alternatives.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Dec 16, 2:24=C2=A0pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 10:32=C2=A0pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Defining your position is important to understanding why you have
>> > written a disinfo page. =C2=A0You don't object to that, do you?
>>
>> > Pamela McElwain-Brown
>>
>> Not even Pamela is willing to defend Martin's record.
>>
>> http://www.jfk-online.com/judythshack.html
>>
>
>Nice try, Dave. Martin doesn't have any smear pages on the net. That
>automatically puts his statements into a different category than yours.
Are you actually saying that nobody is allowed to criticize somebody
in the JFK research arena.
Oh! I know what you mean! Nobody is allowed to criticize
conspiracists.
>
>I object to your entire page. It is simply disinfo.
What is untrue or inaccurate, Pamela?
>Its focus is
>extremely narrow and does not look at all alternatives, thus causing it to
>fall prey to the fallacy of false alternatives.
>
While you are at it, point out any inaccuracies in my page:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
If you can't, you simply can't *engage* here, Pamela.
You can whine and bitch, fuss and fume. But you can't deal with the
issues.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Dec 16, 2:24 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 10:32 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 15, 12:01 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 14, 8:39 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Dec 13, 11:39 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Dec 13, 3:15 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Dec 11, 10:47 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Dec 10, 12:19?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
You keep saying it is disinfo .... but I haven't seen you post one
example that is inaccurate...though you have been asked to do so.
Perhaps it is your claims that it is a " smear page" and "it is simply
disinfo" that are the fallacy.
Barb :-)
>
>Pamela McElwain-Brown
>www.in-broad-daylight.com
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Dec 16, 3:14?am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> On 14 Dec 2007 20:40:52 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 13, 11:20 pm, steve <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 14, 3:16 am, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Dec 12, 11:53 pm, steve <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > I would like to see these things confirmed or denied by Marina. ?These
>> >> > > > are things that tend to add definition to some of LHO's actions.
>>
>> >> > > ? well thats a lot better than what you said before. you gave the
>> >> > > impression in your other post that these things WERE CONFIRMED ALREADY.
>>
>> >> > Where they are things probably only Marina would know, Marina would
>> >> > have to be the one to confirm them.
>>
>> >> ? and you think she wouldnt have done that by now? after 40+ years of
>> >> wondering? the biggest crime of the century, mabey your lifetime. your
>> >> husband is arrested for the murder of a president and shot 2 days later.
>> >> hundreds of CT's and you wouldnt be jumping at every chance you got to
>> >> find out the truth? how many years has Judyth been public with her
>> >> nonsense?
>>
>> >When the witness is the other woman, it takes on a whole new dimension. ?
>> >Marina has taken some remarkable steps toward helping uncover information
>> >regarding LHO's innocence. ?Some of that may have been flawed, such as her
>> >involvement with the authors of OT, but her intentions have been good. ?
>> >Nobody, however, until Judyth, has stepped forward in such a manner that
>> >Marina's position in relation to Lee could be threatened.
>>
>> Threatened? Marina was Oswald's life; she bore his children. Nothing
>> ... and no body can threaten that position.
>>
>> > If Judyth is in
>> >the picture, what happens to Marina's stature as his widow?
>>
>> Tell me you are kidding!? Marina was, and forever will be, his widow.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > > "Marina has been said to have acknowledged that LHO had an affair with
>> >> > > Judyth. ?Judyth knows a number of things about Marina the public is not
>> >> > > generally aware of. ?"
>>
>> >> > > ? but like i said, Marina is not going to get together with Judyth because
>> >> > > she knows Judyth is full of it.
>>
>> >> > You're speculating. ?I disagree. ?I think Marina is wary of Judyth.
>> >> > And I have to wonder if Marina suspected or knew about Judyth long
>> >> > before Judyth came forth.
>>
>> >> ? ?and who is the one speculating?
>>
>> >Fair enough. ?However, there are some tantalizing clues. :-)
>>
>> >> > > Marina has been searching for an answer to
>> >> > > her questions since she made public her belief in a conspiracy.
>>
>> >> > It is interesting how Marina changed her position. ?I wonder if there
>> >> > is more to that than what she has said.
>>
>> >> ? ? she has begged at times for someone to come forward. if she
>> >> thought Judyth was that person we would know by now.
>>
>> >I don't agree. ?She has confirmed the possibility of the affair off-
>> >the-record. ?She has not wanted to enter the fray as the widow of LHO.
>>
>> >> > >she has
>> >> > > looked into many things, y not Judyth? the answer is Judyth is loony.
>>
>> >> > Marina may not have been ready to open a Pandora's box. ?But knowing
>> >> > how tough and tenacious she is, I hope that time will come.
>>
>> >> ? who is speculating again? "may not have been ready to open a Pandoras
>> >> box"? give us a break, she has been BEGGING FOR YEARS for someone to come
>> >> forward with info that would be usefull.
>>
>> >Really? ?The other woman? ?Can you imagine what selflessness that would
>> >take? ?What would happen to all the money Marina has received? Would some
>> >people be demanding it back, to be given instead to Judyth?
>>
>> Oh my/ Beyond preposterous!
>>
>> Oh yes, I can see it now ... people pounding on the ?poor little
>> confused and bewildered immigrant wife with the 2 babies' door
>> demanding their moey back so they could give it to the conniving
>> cheating bride who was developing a vicious weapon to kill Castro and,
>> in the process, used and killed a patient at a mental hospital to test
>> her bioweapon....not to mention that she had vast foreknowledge of the
>> plot to kill JFK and did nothing to stop it.
>>
>> Pamela, please, check your gyro ... something is terribly askew with
>> your orientation!
>>
>> Barb :-)
>
>
>I'm beginning to wonder who has the more vivid imagination, Judyth or
>Pamela.
Frankly, some of Judyth's imagination at least makes sense ... if you
don't know the facts anyway.
Barb :-)
>
>Dave
polly brown
Don't worry, Dave. It's called intellectual curiosity, and I'm sure
it's not catching.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
polly brown
> On 16 Dec 2007 22:57:40 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
who are anti-Garrison cannot but be
anti-Judyth? Or the fact that you and Reitzes have felt it necessary
to post disinfo pages on Judyth because she presents too much of a
threat for you to treat her ethically?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
polly brown
contact with Marina to contact me.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Dave Reitzes
You'll need to be more specific, Pamela. Show me how you can discredit
all the documented facts in my article about Martin's abysmal record:
http://www.jfk-online.com/judythshack.html
Be specific and cite your sources.
Or refuse, and concede implicitly that everything I've said about
Martin is 100% accurate.
Your choice.
Dave
polly brown
telling, Barb.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Dave Reitzes
> On 16 Dec 2007 22:57:40 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
Ding, ding, ding, ding!
Give that man a prize.
Dave
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Dec 17, 1:15 am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
I'm not promoting anything.
What is telling is that you cannot answer a simple question directly
... or otherwise. If Dave's page is a smear page and "disinfo" ....why
won't you provide even one example of something from his page that
demonstrates your point?
Simple as that.
If you can't understand, deal with or orient yourself to something so
simple ... it is telling, indeed.
Geesh.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Dec 15, 8:06 pm, JLeyden...@aol.com wrote:
Ever consider the possibility that Marina doesn't want to be in
contact with *you*?
Like you have noted, there are people on this group who do have access
to Marina. Don't you suppose that if Marina wanted anything to do with
you and your Judyth orienting, you would have heard so by now?
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> Not everyone wants to become a target of newsgroup slander, Leyden. I got
> my information from a prominent British researcher who was sitting next to
> Marina when she watched 'The Love Affair." You, in contrast, have no
> information, just uninformed prejudice. Your claim that the information is
> "pure fiction" is pure, sourceless nonsense.
>
> Martin
I wish you'd hook up one of those little computer cams to your monitor,
Shackelford, so we could see if you actually write this stuff with a
straight face. Once again you refused to name your source and you really
expect -- or do you? -- that people should believe you. Of course, all
you've done is once again reemphasize that you never bothered to question
Marina Oswald yourself about Judyth's claim of a great love affair with
her husband. But, as I've said before, it's all moot now. But you could
have saved us all a lot of grief with just a little basic research.
JGL
Martin Shackelford
remains
is based on e-mails from Judyth's attackers, or is simply your opinions.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4765f44d...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Dec 16, 10:03 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
Sashay(tm)!!
You can't point out any inaccuracies on my page, nor on Reitzes.
Pamela, if one cares about the truth, one does not take sides
pro-Garrison or pro-Judyth and *then* evaluate all information that
contradicts ones position as "disinformation."
One starts trying to get the facts straight.
You just can't defend Judyth on factual issues.
You can't defend Garrison on a factual basis.
So you whine and complain and bitch and moan, and holler
"disinformation."
But *real* disinformation can be debunked with facts.
Your "disinformation" is just facts that you don't like.
.John
--
Martin Shackelford
demands,
or they are "implicitly" acknowledging that he is "100% correct."
Let's be very clear. You are not "100% correct", no matter what anyone does
or
does not do.
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:16f2ea32-2712-46f0...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 16, 10:57 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2:24 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 10:32 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 12:01 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 14, 8:39 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 13, 11:39 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 13, 3:15 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 11, 10:47 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 10, 12:19?pm, "Martin Shackelford"
polly brown
wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2007 15:16:52 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 15, 8:06 pm, JLeyden...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Dec 14, 8:40 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >> >I don't agree. She has confirmed the possibility of the affair off-
> >> >the-record. She has not wanted to enter the fray as the widow of LHO.
>
> >> I do wish you and Shackelford would stop making this claim unless you can
> >> provide the names of your sources. Neither of you have had any contact
> >> with Marina or her supposedly talkative friends. This is pure fiction on
> >> your parts.
>
> >I have asked more than once for you or someone on this ng who is in
> >contact with Marina to contact me.
>
> Ever consider the possibility that Marina doesn't want to be in
> contact with *you*?
>
> Like you have noted, there are people on this group who do have access
> to Marina. Don't you suppose that if Marina wanted anything to do with
> you and your Judyth orienting, you would have heard so by now?
>
It would take a wild imagination to make sense of anything you are saying.
I hope you don't mind if I continue to express my interest in
communicating with Marina.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
polly brown
wrote:
> You've already had to make two deletions from your page. Much of what
> remains
> is based on e-mails from Judyth's attackers, or is simply your opinions.
>
> Martin
And last time I checked McAdams was still using a picture for which he had
no permission and material unethically obtained which has a copyright
attached to it.
Less than ethical tactics certainly have more in common with propaganda
than with any kind of factual reporting.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
polly brown
wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2007 15:41:38 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
Will you next tell me to ask Leni Reifenstahl to make corrections to her
propaganda movies for Hitler and the Third Reich?
Reitzes' page on Judyth is hopeless, except maybe as an example of
propaganda. Are you suggesting an assignment showing its virtues in that
regard? Or perhaps a compare and contrast with the McAdams page?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
polly brown
> On 17 Dec 2007 15:12:20 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
You, of all people, should have something constructive to say in this
regard. You use this ng in your class on pol science, don't you? Surely
you have communicated to your students that many of your web pages are so
outrageously unbalanced that they serve as examples of propaganda? Don't
you use them to see how perceptive the posters here are, and then analyze
the various responses? Don't you discuss whether or not you can 'engage'
the posters to 'discuss' propaganda as though it were 'evidence'? I would
hope so, as it is u money supporting this group.
>
> Pamela, if one cares about the truth, one does not take sides
> pro-Garrison or pro-Judyth and *then* evaluate all information that
> contradicts ones position as "disinformation."
How noble that sounds.
>
> One starts trying to get the facts straight.
Really? As the WC did?
>
> You just can't defend Judyth on factual issues.
You have not presented any factual issues on your page.
>
> You can't defend Garrison on a factual basis.
You have not presented any factual issues on that page either.
>
> So you whine and complain and bitch and moan, and holler
> "disinformation."[...]
Surely you are able to perceive the slanderous slant of your pages. When
you call people liars, don't you consider that slanderous?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
polly brown
> On Dec 14, 8:39 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 11:39 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 13, 3:15 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 11, 10:47 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 10, 12:19�pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Wrong again, Leyden, and you know it.
> > > > > > I had an e-mail from Robert Baker stating that he knew of NOTHING that would
> > > > > > contradict her account.
> > > > > > I had information from several friends of Marina regarding her reaction to
> > > > > > Judyth's
> > > > > > account on the History Channel, and had written to her, but she didn't
> > > > > > respond.
> > > > > > The fact that you thrown in Cancun as well shows how weak you know your
> > > > > > claims are.
>
> > > > > > Martin
>
> > > > > So states Martin Shackelford.
>
> > > > > But should we believe Martin Shackelford?
>
> > > > >http://www.jfk-online.com/judythshack.html
>
> > > > Should we believe you? :-0
>
> > > If you find any errors in my article, you feel free to post them here,
> > > Polly.
>
> > Your page is slanted similarly to McAdam's "Judyth" page. It is basically
> > slanderous.
>
> So you say. Yet you can't demonstrate even a single error.
There is no point. The concept behind the page is in error. Would you
like to discuss it as a propaganda page? Would you like my opinion on
what its effect is likely to be?
>
> As with Martin, we're all just supposed to take your word for
> everything!
>[...]
Apparently, posters are supposed to take yours, without any consideration
for what your objective is or where you are coming from. Rather naive,
don't you think?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
polly brown
> On Dec 14, 8:40 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't agree. She has confirmed the possibility of the affair off-
> >the-record. She has not wanted to enter the fray as the widow of LHO.
>
> I do wish you and Shackelford would stop making this claim unless you can
> provide the names of your sources. Neither of you have had any contact
> with Marina or her supposedly talkative friends. This is pure fiction on
> your parts.
I am interested in contacting Marina.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Dec 18, 1:15 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 17 Dec 2007 15:12:20 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Which 'issue' are you complaining about? The fact that those of you
>> >who are anti-Garrison cannot but be
>> >anti-Judyth? Or the fact that you and Reitzes have felt it necessary
>> >to post disinfo pages on Judyth because she presents too much of a
>> >threat for you to treat her ethically?
>>
>> Sashay(tm)!!
>>
>> You can't point out any inaccuracies on my page, nor on Reitzes.
>
>
>You, of all people, should have something constructive to say in this
>regard.
I said something constructive.
I said you can't point out any inaccuracies on my page.
Want to give it a try?
>You use this ng in your class on pol science, don't you? Surely
>you have communicated to your students that many of your web pages are so
>outrageously unbalanced that they serve as examples of propaganda? Don't
>you use them to see how perceptive the posters here are, and then analyze
>the various responses? Don't you discuss whether or not you can 'engage'
>the posters to 'discuss' propaganda as though it were 'evidence'? I would
>hope so, as it is u money supporting this group.
>
Point to an inaccuracy, Pamela.
If you can't, it's going to be obvious that you respond to these kinds
of issues with pure emotion, and not logic or evidence.
>>
>> Pamela, if one cares about the truth, one does not take sides
>> pro-Garrison or pro-Judyth and *then* evaluate all information that
>> contradicts ones position as "disinformation."
>
>How noble that sounds.
>
>>
>> One starts trying to get the facts straight.
>
>Really? As the WC did?
>
>>
>> You just can't defend Judyth on factual issues.
>
>You have not presented any factual issues on your page.
Anybody can see that's not true.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>
>>
>> You can't defend Garrison on a factual basis.
>
>You have not presented any factual issues on that page either.
>
Is you definition of "factual" what accords with your preconceptions?
Either you try arguing the evidence, or everybody will know that you
*can't* argue evidence.
>>
>> So you whine and complain and bitch and moan, and holler
>> "disinformation."[...]
>
>Surely you are able to perceive the slanderous slant of your pages. When
>you call people liars, don't you consider that slanderous?
>
Truth is an absolute defense against slander.
BTW, do you think it's OK to slander the Warren Commission?
.John
--
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Dec 18, 1:00 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>> You've already had to make two deletions from your page.
>> Much of what
>> remains
>> is based on e-mails from Judyth's attackers, or is simply your opinions.
>>
But the "e-mails from Judyth's attackers" were e-mails that Judyth
wrote!
Team Judyth must have been going ballistic while she was writing
everybody under the sun!
>> Martin
>> [...]
>
>And last time I checked McAdams was still using a picture for which he had
>no permission and material unethically obtained which has a copyright
>attached to it.
>
And which picture is that?
And who owns the copyright?
You know that simply having a print doesn't mean you own the
copyright, don't you?
>Less than ethical tactics certainly have more in common with propaganda
>than with any kind of factual reporting.
>
You mean putting a photo of Judyth on the page!!!
Horrible!!
You just can't engage the issues.
You seem incapable of it.
If you could, you would.
.John
--
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Dec 17, 6:08 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
But you can't point to anything inaccurate on either page.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Dec 17, 6:08 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
I refuse to believe that you really are unable to grasp the quiote
simple concept of being asked to cite one example from this horrible
error ridden smear, propaganda, disinfo page that you keep going on
about to demonstrate your point.
Sans doing that, it's nothing but a smear campaign by you!
If you coulda, you woulda by now ... in my humble opinion.
Oy.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Dec 15, 12:01 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 8:39 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 13, 11:39 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 13, 3:15 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Dec 11, 10:47 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Dec 10, 12:19?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>> > > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > Wrong again, Leyden, and you know it.
>> > > > > > I had an e-mail from Robert Baker stating that he knew of NOTHING that would
>> > > > > > contradict her account.
>> > > > > > I had information from several friends of Marina regarding her reaction to
>> > > > > > Judyth's
>> > > > > > account on the History Channel, and had written to her, but she didn't
>> > > > > > respond.
>> > > > > > The fact that you thrown in Cancun as well shows how weak you know your
>> > > > > > claims are.
>>
>> > > > > > Martin
>>
>> > > > > So states Martin Shackelford.
>>
>> > > > > But should we believe Martin Shackelford?
>>
>> > > > >http://www.jfk-online.com/judythshack.html
>>
>> > > > Should we believe you? :-0
>>
>> > > If you find any errors in my article, you feel free to post them here,
>> > > Polly.
>>
>> > Your page is slanted similarly to McAdam's "Judyth" page. It is basically
>> > slanderous.
>>
>> So you say. Yet you can't demonstrate even a single error.
>
>There is no point.
There is if you want people to think there is any validity at all to
anything you have to say.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Dec 17, 6:21 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
Nope ... express away. But somewhere along the line, you might wonder
why all your public expression in an arena where there are people who
have accfess to Marina doesn't yield you any contact with Marina.
No imagination to understand necessary. Just some simple common sense.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Dec 18, 1:15 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
If you call someone a liar, and what they have said is documented as
untrue ... it's not slander, it's the truth.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, it needs to be slandered daily, often. Can someone literally
slander a government institution. Can you slander a rock?
Hey rock, you're ugly!
polly brown
> On 17 Dec 2007 15:12:20 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
Not at all. Do you really think those who view your web pages are
unable to look at them objectively? Do you think everyone just buys
anything you are saying?
Your web pages denigrate everyone and everything not connected to the
WCR. They slander Judyth, Mark Lane, Garrison and others by calling
them 'liars'. Anyone can see this. The only logical conclusion,
based on your pages, is that only the WCR is 'truthful'.
Surely you describe this objective to your students? You certainly
teach them how to think cricitally, don't you? Do you spend a class
or two comparing, say, your page on Judyth with Reitzes page on
Judyth, asking them to define what areas are pure propaganda, which
are disinfo, which are slander, don't you?
>
> You can't point out any inaccuracies on my page, nor on Reitzes.
The point of your and Reitzes' pages are to claim Judyth is a 'liar'.
That is wrong.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Dec 18, 1:15 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
You can't actually discuss real *issues,* can you Pamela?
You fuss and fume about how Dave and I are rough on Garrison and on
Judyth. You think that must be wrong.
But you can't explain *why* it's wrong.
If you want anybody around here to take you seriously, you will
actually debate the facts, rather than fussing and fuming.
>
>>
>> You can't point out any inaccuracies on my page, nor on Reitzes.
>
>The point of your and Reitzes' pages are to claim Judyth is a 'liar'.
>That is wrong.
>
Why is it wrong? They are liars.
If you don't like hearing that, then refute anything on my Judyth
page, my Garrison page, or any of Dave's pages on either subject.
.John
polly brown
wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2007 21:31:33 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
But if you know someone is telling the truth and continue to insist they
are lying, and attempt to dismiss all the evidence they present, that is
slander.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
polly brown
Hilarious, Anthony. Perhaps McAdams will pony up with his definition of
slander.
Since he is comfortable posting slander pages on Judyth, Garrison and Mark
Lane, to name a few, his response would be telling.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Dec 19, 1:42 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
Pamela, you can huff and puff and bitch and whine, but your failure to
show that anything on any of my pages is inaccurate speaks volumes.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
OK, if you want to be pedantic, is it OK for you people to slander
member of the Commission, or Commission staffers, or witnesses whose
testimony you don't like?
You buffs just don't get that you get no special treatment.
You are fair game. You are not exempt from critical scrutiny.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
polly brown
> On 19 Dec 2007 22:46:12 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 19, 1:42 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> John McAdams wrote:
> >> > On 18 Dec 2007 21:31:33 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> Surely you are able to perceive the slanderous slant of your pages. When
> >> >> you call people liars, don't you consider that slanderous?
>
> >> > Truth is an absolute defense against slander.
>
> >> > BTW, do you think it's OK to slander the Warren Commission?
>
> >> Yes, it needs to be slandered daily, often. Can someone literally
> >> slander a government institution. Can you slander a rock?
> >> Hey rock, you're ugly!
>
> >Hilarious, Anthony. Perhaps McAdams will pony up with his definition of
> >slander.
>
> >Since he is comfortable posting slander pages on Judyth, Garrison and Mark
> >Lane, to name a few, his response would be telling.
>
> Pamela, you can huff and puff and bitch and whine, but your failure to
> show that anything on any of my pages is inaccurate speaks volumes.
Each of your pages on Judyth, Garrison and Lane is designed to say they
are liars. They are not liars. That is slander, or more specifically,
libel. Why not own up to that?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Dec 19, 9:48 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
Prove it.
>That is slander, or more specifically,
>libel. Why not own up to that?
>
Why not engage issues.
You just can't do it, can you?
Do you simply not know enough about the assassination to debate
specifics?
polly brown
> On 19 Dec 2007 14:42:53 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>
>
> <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >John McAdams wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> You just can't defend Judyth on factual issues.
> >>> You have not presented any factual issues on your page.
>
> >> Anybody can see that's not true.
>
> >>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>
> >>>> You can't defend Garrison on a factual basis.
> >>> You have not presented any factual issues on that page either.
>
> >> Is you definition of "factual" what accords with your preconceptions?
>
> >> Either you try arguing the evidence, or everybody will know that you
> >> *can't* argue evidence.
>
> >>>> So you whine and complain and bitch and moan, and holler
> >>>> "disinformation."[...]
> >>> Surely you are able to perceive the slanderous slant of your pages. When
> >>> you call people liars, don't you consider that slanderous?
>
> >> Truth is an absolute defense against slander.
>
> >> BTW, do you think it's OK to slander the Warren Commission?
>
> >Yes, it needs to be slandered daily, often. Can someone literally
> >slander a government institution. Can you slander a rock?
> >Hey rock, you're ugly!
>
> OK, if you want to be pedantic, is it OK for you people to slander
> member of the Commission, or Commission staffers, or witnesses whose
> testimony you don't like?
>
> You buffs just don't get that you get no special treatment.
>
> You are fair game. You are not exempt from critical scrutiny.
Neither are you. The fact that you have to make statements like that
in order to deal with us speaks volumes.
Pamela McEwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Martin Shackelford
to believe you.
1) Among fellow students who remember her, opinion is about evenly split
between remembering her as "intelligent" and remembering her as "weird,"
Fact: Contemporary articles show her to have been a popular student at
Manatee High School. You
ignore all information about her except the content of an e-mail
from one of her attackers,
Robert Johnson.
2) conducted "cancer research" with mice.
Fact: She conducted cancer research. Putting quotes around it implies that
she may not have.
3) a biographical blurb...two versions...one a bit "sanitized"
Fact: The claim that it was sanitized and the "reasons" given are your
opinion, not facts.
4) an outline, entitled "Deadly Alliance"...Carefully formatted and
polished, this is the "official"
version of her story--at least it was when it was written.
Fact: This one one of a long series of outline drafts that went back and
forth between Howard
Platzman, who wrote them, and Judyth, copied to a few others for
comments--none of them
were "the official version" of her account. You go on to say that
references to her account
refer to this outline--and thus, you again mislead.
5) She was thus drawn into the orbit of very sinister people and eventually
into a plot that had the intention of killing Castro, but ended up killing
JFK instead.
Fact: "sinister" is your favorite term, but is not from Judyth's
account, as you imply. The plot
against Castro wasn't the same as the plot against JFK, as you claim.
Much later in your
essay, you mention that she says Ferrie was OPPOSED to the plot against
JFK, which
hardly argues for your claim that the two plots were the same. You
repeat the same error
much later: "After the plot to kill Castro failed, the plotters turned
to "Plan B," the
assassination of Kennedy." You insert the term "sinister"
repeatedly--but it never
comes from her.
6) The "interesting" time in her life was the summer of 1963, when she was
in New Orleans.
Fact: Quite a few times in her life have been "interesting."
7) What brought Judyth and Lee together was a plot, centered in New Orleans,
to produce a bioweapon for the purpose of killing Fidel Castro.
Fact: They met at the New Orleans Post Office, before Judyth was
involved in the "plot." Much later
in your essay, you mention this meeting yourself.
8) The research was done in the apartments of Ferrie and Sherman.
Fact: The account states that the research was done at Ferrie's
apartment and another one a
short distance from his on the same street--none of the research was
done at Sherman's apt.
9) However, instead of using their sophisticated bioweapon concoction on
him, they decided to simply shoot him.
Fact: This comment makes no sense, and is simply included to ridicule
Judyth's account.
10) Oswald, who liked Kennedy, was an unwilling participant in the plot, but
never defected nor told the authorities about the plan.
Fact: According to her account, Oswald willingly infiltrated the plot,
he was not "an unwilling
participant." She also believes that he DID tell authorities about the
plan.
11) That the CIA would need to develop a bioweapon to kill Castro is
farfetched, since they had a variety of poisons that would have killed him -
including some that would do so without it being obvious he was in fact
murdered.
Fact: As has been pointed out here many times, the CIA was engaging in
much more "far-fetched"
plans against Castro. Do you recall the sound and light show that was
supposed to convince the
Cubans that the Second Coming had arrived? Nope, the CIA would never do
anything "far-fetched."
In a footnote, you cite Dave Blackburst for a list of "far-fetched"
anti-Castro projects by Ferrie.
12) Further, when the CIA wanted scientific research done, they were able to
recruit top-notch Ph.D.-level university talent.
Fact: Tony Marsh has refuted this nonsense several times, citing
non-Ph.D. people working on
"scientific research" for the CIA.
13) a reputable doctor (Sherman) who was in fact an orthopedic surgeon.
Fact: ALL of the articles on Sherman's death described her as a cancer
researcher. You imply
that, being "in fact an orthopedic surgeon" that she wouldn't be doing
cancer research. False.
You bury an admission that she did cancer research in a footnote--and
then minimize it.
14) The mice, by the way, were long gone from his apartment by the summer
of 1963.
Fact: This is one of the unsourced statements in the article, of which
there are quite a few.
15) Real CIA research was done in university labs, or at secure military
installations.
Fact: This is false. CIA research was conducted in a variety of places.
Some of their drug
research, for example, was conducted at a brothel.
16) Judyth's supposed encounter with Michaelson would have taken place when
she was a first semester sophomore in high school. Given the CIA's ability
to recruit top-notch Ph.D. talent, it's a bit odd to be told that they were
scouting high school students.
Fact: First, you imply that Judyth may not have had an encounter with
Michaelson; secondly, you
imply that she claimed he was there specifically for the purpose of
"scouting high school students."
She never says this.
17) In the caption to the photo you included without permission, you say:
She and her supporters have produced hard evidence of only two elements of
her story: (1) she was a good science student in high school and (2) she
worked at the Reily Coffee Company at the same time as Lee Oswald.
Fact: As discussed in detail over the past few months, she was far more
than "a good science
student in high school." The evidence indicates that she was an
EXCEPTIONAL science
student. She was also a fine science student in college, which you
ignore. As for the second
point, you continue to minimize--they began on the same day, moved from
Standard to Reily
on the same day, and her job placed her near the time clock, where
employees clocked in
and out. Documentation has also been provided of other points, which
you ignore. Even
when you have conceded additional points, you haven't updated your
webpage to correct it.
18) In the course of accusing her of being "slipshod" about science, you
cite an anonymous source. You
also ignore the fact, by focusing on her inaccurate recollection of a
drug's name, that intelligence
agencies HAVE used a drug that induces death, and appears to be from a
heart attack.
19) You cite "Dutch sources" for a statement which you say she later
changed--but in the past, you
have posted mistranslations of "Dutch sources," so this is hardly
credible.
20) How the CIA - which failed to even once expose Castro to any of the
toxins it had - was going to arrange for the repeated doses of radiation is
something Judyth didn't explain.
Fact: The explanation was in her book, and had appeared in earlier
sources as well--but again,
you never updated your webpage to reflect this.
21) She has a green glass, of the sort that Reily gave to customers as a
premium, that she says that Lee stole and gave to her, and which she
treasures. How do we know that Lee gave it to her? She says he did.
Fact: You omit the fact that her family has known about the significance
of the green glass since as
far back as 1980. Was she planning a hoax back then? If so, why did she
wait until 1998?
22) The release of her book (which was quickly withdrawn)
Fact: Her book was published in May 2006. It was withdrawn in September
2007. In other words,
it was in print for 16 months. I don't call that "quickly withdrawn."
23) Interestingly, Anna Lewis, with her important "corroboration" of Judyth's
story, doesn't appear in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."
Fact: You omit that Anna gave permission for Turner to use her January
2000 interview. You also
omit that Turner chose to present her account simply as an interview
of Judyth, despite the fact that
he had filmed forty hours worth of material, including extensive
documentation.
24) The dates with David and Anna Lewis don't appear in the earlier versions
of her story.
Fact: Based on your earlier reference, one assumes you refer to the
"Deadly Alliance" outline.
Many details which had been mentioned in her e-mails did not yet
appear in the outline, as it
was a work in progress--by Howard--something you never mention.
25) For example, she told researcher Robert Harris that she and Lee
double-dated with an old girlfriend of hers from high school and the
girlfriend's fiancé. The two got married in September of 1963. Harris grew
suspicious of the story when Judyth could not recall the name of the woman,
in spite of their supposedly having been best friends in high school.
Fact: So she couldn't recall the name after 35 years. I have an
article with the woman's name,
talking about her wedding shower.
26) You also pretend that if certain pieces of evidence weren't mentioned in
her early writings, they
must not have existed yet, implying that she created them. In fact, she
was going through boxes of
her belongings, and over time, located additional documentation.
27) You say she claimed to have "Lee's shower shoes," but your only cite is
an e-mail from Louis
Girdler, another of Judyth's attackers. You cite nothing written by
Judyth. Girdler is the source of
another claim you had to withdraw, that Howard had somehow made financial
promises to Anna
Lewis for her account, despite the fact that she had made an audio
recording of her account well
before ever meeting Howard, and despite that fact that the videotaping of
her account was
something that someone else sprung on us, something of which Howard
wasn't aware in advance.
The dead giveaway, of course, was when Girdler described Howard's
PHYSICAL reactions
during his "admission," despite Girdler's claim that the "admission" came
in a phone call. Either
Girdler or David Lifton added the physical reactions to the
account--based on nothing.
By the way, if Judyth indeed did learn about the "shower shoes" in the
Archives, what would she
supposedly gain from claiming to be in possession of them, knowing the
Archives had them?
28) On letters to Lee, you cite Robert Baker's second wife Rose, who had no
direct knowledge
of the nature of the relationship between Judyth and Robert in 1963, and
was thus in no
position to characterize any letter as probably having been written to
Robert, and not Lee.
29) her former husband remembers that, rather than being mysteriously "set
up" with the job at Reily Coffee Company, she got it when she got tired of
flipping hamburgers at a local burger joint.
Fact: Her former husband has no direct knowledge regarding the
matter--at the time, he was
working in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, if the job was arranged as a
cover, why would she
tell him that?
30) he brought home a newspaper and was studying it closely and said, "I
think I may have seen this guy. He was a stocker or something. I think I saw
him in the back room."
Fact: You seem to assume that she would blurt out that she had an affair
with him.
31) Her classmates at Manatee High School do indeed remember her doing
cancer research, but it was a rather amateurish sort.
Fact: This is another cite to Judyth attacker Robert Johnson, referring
to a comment by a SINGLE
former classmate. It completely misrepresents the quality of her
research, which was good enough
to get her the ONLY Florida invite to Roswell Park.
32) When you question her account of learning Russian, your only cite is the
alleged Mary Ferrell
attack e-mail, which Mary (on tape) denied writing. You cite it again as
a source later.
33) By 2003, when Judyth was interviewed for "The Men Who Killed Kennedy",
the business about speaking Russian to Lee was missing, and instead Judyth
explained that Lee was so "clean cut" that when he offered to walk her home
she agreed.
Fact: This wasn't a change, but was also part of her original account.
34) virtually all of the people she implicates have had a more-or-less
prominent place in JFK assassination conspiracy books.
Fact: This is not true of Dr. Ochsner.
35) You say that Ochsner was anti-communist "so in the reverse McCarthyism
that is typical of left-leaning conspiracists, he is suspect."
Fact: Of course, his anti-communism is NOT why he was included in her
account. The link was
their mutual interest in cancer research, and specifically melanoma. As
Judyth was also "anti-
communist," this is a specious explanation for why Ochsner was a
suspect.
36) Interestingly, there was no "Ochsner Cancer Clinic," but rather only an
Ochsner Clinic - although of course the latter could treat cancer as it
could treat most diseases.
Fact: This seems an attempt to evade the fact that Ochsner was a
leading cancer expert.
37) Judyth's account finds Ochsner sinister because: Author Thomas Karnes
(Tropical Enterprise) describes Ochsner as a consultant to the US Air Force
"on the medical side of subversive matters."
Fact: Again, "sinister" is your own inserted word--she doesn't use it,
but this is your second attempt
to attribute it to "her account." As noted, she was also
anti-communist, and the idea that she picked
Ochsner to implicate in some sort of mirror-McCarthyism makes no sense
whatsoever.
38) It then goes on to claim . . . In early May, Judyth was told Ochsner had
set up both Ferrie's home-based cancer lab, as well as a smaller lab in the
apartment of Dr. Mary Sherman, a luminary at Ochsner's Clinic. The labs were
devoted to "the medical side of subversive matters," i.e., a form of
biological warfare.
Fact: Presumably "it" refers to the outline written--not by Judyth, but
by Howard Platzman.
39) In the first place, the Air Force isn't the same thing as the CIA, and
it's the latter, not the former, that Judyth has as a key mover in the plot.
Fact: Karnes, not Judyth, mentions the Air Force.
40) Ochsner had an outstanding reputation as a humanitarian - a fact that
left-leaning conspiracists, obsessed with his anti-Communism - never bother
to discuss.
Fact: So what? This has nothing to do with whether or not he would have
been involved with an
anti-Castro plot. He is well-documented as having been a key figure in
New Orleans anti-Castro
activities.
41) Why Oswald would have to go through the garage to get to Banister's
office is hard to fathom, since it would be much easier to just walk out on
Magazine Street and then up Lafayette.
Fact: Breaks were taken BEHIND the Reily Building--from there, through
the CC Garage was the
shortest way to get to Banister's office.
42) Judyth claims that "Banister used Lee to collect the names of Communist
sympathizers at area colleges"
Fact: Michael Kurtz also indicated that Banister and Lee were doing
this, and that he witnessed
this as a student at the time.
43) In fact, Banister's office was at 531 Lafayette Street, in the same
Newman Building as 544 Camp, but with no connection with the offices at 544
Camp. To get from Banister's office to 544 Camp, one had to leave the
building and walk around the corner.
Fact: This has nothing to do with whether Lee used an office on the
second floor.
44) You note that Banister's secretary confirmed that Oswald used a second
floor office, and that
Oswald placed the address on some of his pro-Castro literature, but
then dismiss the secretary
as lacking in credibility--your customary characterization of any
witness who supports any part
of Judyth's account.
45) Secret internal CIA documents, now released, show Banister not to have
been any sort of CIA operative.
Fact: Although you refer to "documents," the link is only to ONE
document. All it says about
Banister is:
10. Was Guy BANISTER or Hugh WARD associated with CIA? No.
The idea that this is sufficient "evidence" to prove that Banister had
no CIA connection is just
odd, John. The same document says the same thing about George de
Mohrenschildt, despite
the fact that DeMohrenschildt supplied Oswald material to the Dallas
CIA rep Moore. The
same document notes that some information relating to Shaw's
relationship with the CIA was
missing from the files to which the document's author was given
access. This doesn't say much
for the idea that the document "proves" no CIA connection--just that
in the files available to
the document's author, no such connection was apparent.
46) In responding to a statement by Judyth that she was introduced to Ruby
in New Orleans as
"Sparky," you cite information about what he was and wasn't called in
DALLAS.
47) The notion that Ruby was involved in "gun running" is an old one in
conspiracy literature, and has been based on extremely flimsy evidence.
Fact: You refer to the testimony of Nancy Perrin Rich, implying that
this is the only "evidence'
of Ruby's involvement in gun-running. In fact, there are a number of
sources which report this,
including Robert McKeown.
48) There is only one documented instance when Ruby was in New Orleans in
1963:
Fact: You don't address the issue of whether he may have made
UNdocumented trips there.
49) You dismiss Oswald's connections to the Marcello organization, implying
that the only tie was
a "peripheral connection" via his uncle Dutz Murrett. You fail to
mention that he had another
uncle, William Oswald, who also worked for Marcello; that his mother
dated Clem Sehrt,
associated with Marcello; and that additional connections were noted
both by John Davis
in Mafia Kingfish, and by the House Select Committee on
Assassinations. Your "definitive"
source" on these matters turns out to be Gerald Posner, whom even
Bugliosi dismisses. A
Marcello relative also confirmed to us that Oswald had connections to
the organization,
and that among the Marcello people, his affair with Judyth was
generally known. It is
interesting also to note that after Anna Lewis gave a videotaped
statement, she was
threatened by an old Marcello associate.
50) This "training camp" account apparently stems from Robert Tanenbaum, who
was for a short time Deputy Counsel of the House Select Committee on
Assassinations and who claims to have seen such a film. Not surprisingly, no
such film exists, and there is no evidence it ever existed beyond Tanenbaum's
assertion. Judyth appears to have gotten wind of the Tanenbaum claim and
written it into her story.
Fact: When Judyth first mentioned it to me, she thought she was
telling me something no one had
ever heard about before. It was then that I told her that Tannenbaum
had also mentioned such a
film in his novel. Since then, Tannenbaum, Robert Groden, L.J. Delsa
and others have also
confirmed that such a film was viewed at the House Committee offices.
Tannenbaum recalled
that it was found among materials at Georgetown University, and that
it was placed with other
materials located by the Committee.
51) Judyth told researcher Louis Girdler that Ferrie showed her the "manual"
for the CIA's top secret MK/ULTRA program. Unfortunately, there was never
any such thing as a "manual" for the highly sensitive program that
researched "mind control."
Fact: Your only cited source for all of this is an e-mail from Louis
Girdler. In other words, you
cite NO source for the claim that there was never an MKULTRA manual.
What she described
to me was a binder in Ferrie's possession, containing what she
believed were MKULTRA
documents. Whether the CIA or Ferrie put them together in the binder,
she has no way of
knowing. She described it as a manual sometimes, other times simply as
documents.
52) While many conspiracists have rejected Jim Garrison's "case" against
Clay Shaw, Judyth embraces it wholeheartedly. She claims that Shaw
"represented Texas money in New Orleans." Shaw is portrayed as a thoroughly
cold-blooded fellow by Judyth.
Fact: This is ridiculous. Garrison said Shaw was part of the plot
against JFK. Judyth doesn't. The
"Texas money" she mentions was for the ANTI-CASTRO project. As for
describing him as
"thoroughly cold-blooded," she in fact describes him as sympathetic to
the young lovers. You
mention this a short time later, apparently failing to see that it
contradicts your claim.
53) Phillips was working at the Mexico City CIA station during the summer of
1963, and could hardly have been the handler of Lee Oswald in New Orleans.
Fact: Antonio Veciana reports seeing Phillips with Oswald that summer
in Dallas. The idea that
Phillips could not have made trips to New Orleans makes no sense. At
least one such trip is
documented, as he met with INCA people.
54) Albert Schweitzer College in Switzerland. According to Judyth: Lee told
me he was told to "apply" there
Fact: The late George Michael Evica documented the extremely odd
application and admissions
procedures of Albert Schweitzer College during that period. They
didn't advertise. To apply, one
had to be nominated and given an application form.
55) No fake defector program has ever been discovered by scholars studying
the CIA,
Fact: You would call this a "sashay," if it wasn't your sashay.
Reports of a false defector
program suggest that it was run by the ONI, not by the CIA.
56) You accept Rich Della Rosa's "determination" that Judyth didn't know
Frank Ragano. It is
interest that Dallas Deputy Sheriff Al Maddox, who knew Ragano better
than Della Rosa,
came to the opposite conclusion.
57) In an attempt to lengthen the list of notables whom you say Judyth
"inserted" into her account,
you include the name of Herbert Philbrick. Of course, it was the
Warren Commission which
"inserted" him into the story--as the subject of Lee's favorite TV
program as a child.
58) Thornley was, in fact, not even in New Orleans at the time of the
supposed affair.
Fact: This is another of your unsourced "refutations."
59) Francis Gary Powers - Pilot of the U-2 spy plane shot down by the
Soviets in 1960. Judyth claims Lee told her he gave the Soviets information
they needed for the successful interception. Judyth adds that "Without a
doubt, Lee told me that he conversed with Gary Powers."
Fact: Of course, Lee himself reported having been present at the
Powers trial in Moscow.
60) Bobby Baker, Billy Sol Estes - Associates of Lyndon Johnson, accused of
corruption.
Fact: Now you're minimizing the guilt of Baker and Estes?
61) Janet Conforto ("Jada") - a stripper recruited by Jack Ruby in New
Orleans. Judyth "reveals" that she "was forced by the mob to go to Dallas,
she did not go willingly . . . ."
Fact: Jada herself complained that she was threatened with having her
costumes shredded.
62) Ron Lewis - an author who wrote a book claiming to have been a friend of
Oswald's in the summer of 1963 in New Orleans. Lewis' story is almost
universally disbelieved among assassination buffs, and when Judyth
discovered this she quickly dropped any mention of him.
Fact: Judyth never considered Ron Lewis a reliable source.
63) [Roscoe] White was a part of Judyth's account early on.
Fact: Your only cite on this is another anonymous source.
64) You quote Paul Hoch as saying "I suspect that a useful measure of the
plausibility of an allegation could be derived from the percentage of
well-known names." Then you turn his "suspicion" into something
called The Paul Hoch Ratio Test, making it sound scientific somehow.
Then you add to this non-existent "test" your own "corollary."
65) You declare as a fact that there was no Oswald Minox camera, that the
Dallas Police
found a light meter, as the FBI later claimed. The Dallas Police have
never taken this
claim seriously. Those who found the camera reported finding FILM
inside it. You
also glide by the problems with the FBI (not Dallas Police) photos of
the evidence.
66) Lee and Judyth were to meet in Cancun - or Judyth was to go there if Lee
failed to escape - and stay in a "fine hotel." Unfortunately, there were no
fine hotels in Cancun in 1963. The popular vacation destination has been
developed since, and the place was a series of deserted sand dunes in 1963.
Fact: Here again you blend two statements into one, placing the "fine
hotel" IN Cancun. You
also falsely state that "the place was a series of deserted sand
dunes in 1963." I posted about
a book written about a trip to the area in 1962; there was a village
at the site, and two Mayan
sites. As Judyth's interest was in Mayan sites, the fact that it
wasn't yet a tourist resort is
hardly relevant. The website you cite as a source fails to explain
why "a series of deserted
sand dunes" would be named on maps going back to at least 1787. It
also fails to mention
that the Mexican government began the Cancun project in the late
1950s, not the early
1970s--the latter time period was when the resort opened. The
"history" on this website is
simply inaccurate. In order to piece together an accurate picture, I
had to go to more than
a dozen websites. Yet, you've made no correction to your essay. You
then cite Robert
Chapman, who also provides a highly inaccurate characterization of
the site. In fact, it
was visited by the author of the 1962 book the year prior to that,
and various hotels in
nearby locations were used by archaeologists who visited the ruins.
You evade this by
referring to "anthropological interest." Later, by the way, you
concede that, in talking with
David Lifton and Mary Ferrell about Cancun, Judyth made no mention of
a fine hotel in
connection with it. She had previously mentioned her interest in the
Mayan ruins, so it
doesn't much matter, as you note, that she didn't mention them in
those specific conver-
sations. Ferrell was certainly aware of them.
67) The individuals to whom the chapter was sent were told nothing about it
being "partially corrected." Indeed, it would be foolish to distribute a
draft before corrections were complete.
Fact: I don't know which ignorant SOB was your source for these
leaks, but as far as I was
aware, everyone who received drafts were aware that they were works
in progress, and not
in their final form. They didn't need to be reminded each time of
this. The whole idea of a
"draft" is that it is NOT the final version. Why does this have to be
explained to you, John?
One would think a college professor would know these things.
68) Judyth, in fact, claims to have put thirty untrue statements in the
manuscript. Supposedly, if the manuscript is stolen, one or more of the
"flags" will reveal who stole or leaked it.
Fact: Both Howard and I told her the "flags" were a stupid idea, but
she was sure they were a
brilliant way to identify plagiarists--different flags in copies
given to different people. At the
same time, you misrepresent comments about a "nonsense" version of
the book. She wrote
an initial manuscript from the letters she had written to her oldest
son--this wasn't "nonsense."
She said her agent circulated a "jazzed-up" version of the manuscript
in an effort to sell it.
69) People familiar with the JFK assassination literature may notice a
distinct similarity between Judyth's account and a story told by Ed Haslam
in a book titled Mary, Ferrie, and the Monkey Virus.
Fact: You've never had a shred of evidence to support the idea that
she got her ideas from Haslam.
In fact, her account differs in key respects from Haslam's, and she
didn't obtain a copy of Haslam's
book until November 1999. Having no evidence whatsoever, you have
consistently tried to
insist that others prove a negative, that she DIDN'T have any access
to the book prior to
November 1999. When you claim someone got their ideas from someone
else, it is up to
YOU to prove your claim, not up to others to disprove it when you
offer no evidence. Your
idea of "evidence" for this claim seems to be "Judyth's account must
be derived from Haslam's."
Why must it? Because McAdams says so. Then, in a feeble effort to
shore up your claim, you
cite a statement she made on Black Op Radio, long AFTER November 1999.
In addition, you
note that a detail you say came from Haslam wasn't even IN Haslam's
book, but was in an
article he wrote in JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly. I don't think Walt
Brown had a Judyth
Baker as a subscriber, John. Any evidence of this? I didn't think so.
70) On the ancestry of the American Cream Dog, your ONLY source is, once
again, Robert's
second wife, Rose Baker, who posted so much nonsense on the newsgroups
that Robert
finally had to tell her to stop. You use Rose as a source again later
in your essay.
71) If Judyth doesn't have any solid evidence to connect her to Oswald, she
has lots of excuses. Consider, again, her green glass. It supposedly
contained a note from Lee, which she kept with the glass. But her daughter
threw it away, not thinking that it was valuable.
Fact: Her daughter confirmed that there had been a note in the glass,
that she had lost it, and that
Judyth was very upset when she learned it was lost.
72) Then there is this, from an e-mail written in September 2000, to explain
the "disappearance" of other evidence
Fact: You imply that she waited a year to mention the incident
involving her landlord, but in fact she
had written about it when it happened, and sent a photo to Howard and
myself showing the pile of
damaged material. On a related matter, your only cited source is
Judyth-basher Louis Girdler.
73) So Judyth would have more samples of Lee's handwriting - if her dogs
hadn't chewed up the books that contained them.
Fact. This is a distortion that you have repeated on numerous
occasions, despite having just quoted
Judyth as saying "The other books where Lee had written marginal
comments was in bad shape,
though. It [sic] had been badly chewed by puppies." No mention here
that the evidence no longer
exists--just that the books were chewed on by the puppies. They all
still existed, and still held the
marginal writing.
74) After quoting a post from me listing problems of harassment Judyth had
experienced, you state:
"Needless to say, Team Judyth has not verified the accuracy of any of this."
In fact, I verified the
first incident with the friend who was the victim; another friend verified
the second incident, and we
had a photograph of the damaged materials (see #72) mentioned in the last
incident.
75) You accept that the History Channel website poster who trashed Judyth
was the son of the
woman who got her fired, and thus one of Judyth's students, and leap from
there to the idea that
this makes him a credible source, rather than a kid siding with his mother.
Apparently, your idea
of the "most credible" source is the source most likely to be hostile toward
Judyth.
76) You dismiss a series of statements by Judyth with nothing more than
ridicule--offering no
evidence whatsoever that a single one of the statements is inaccurate. You
do this again several
times later in the essay. Apparently you find this an adequate substitute
for the sort of solid
documentation you demand from everyone else.
77) The fact that Judyth's story bears a distinct resemblance to the famous
parody college entrance essay is only the beginning of the problem.
Fact: This is pure fantasy on your part. There is NOTHING in the "parody"
which is found in what you
quoted from Judyth. The format is also different. Citing the "parody" as
"documentation" is bizarre.
78) You dismiss her explanation for why she deferred her academic
career--again without any
evidence that it is not accurate. Nor do you offer any explanation for why
she made a sudden
career shift in late 1963.
79) When Judyth talks about obtaining information about LBJ, you add in your
favorite word, and in a single paragraph use it twice--referring to
"sinister information" and "sinister inside information." The
only thing sinister is your apparent obsession with the word.
80) After reiterating several things mentioned earlier, your casually throw
in a new reference:
"A copy of Pushkin's "Queen of Spades" becomes a book that she and Lee read
together."
This is a deceptive way to skip over the significance of the matter--that
she described an
edition with an unusual binding that Mary Ferrell said is now in the
possession of Ruth Paine.
An effort was made by Judyth-bashers to claim that she simply saw a copy of
the same edition
in her college library, but the college librarian described a different
color cover. The details
mentioned by Judyth didn't appear in the literature, and Mary Ferrell was
startled to hear her
describe a book she had only seen in Ruth Paine's home.
81) You refer readers to the similarly distorted Judyth webpage of Dave
Reitzes.
82) "That Royal Castle was the drop site for FBI and CIA surveillance of the
Mafia Don."
Fact: Once again, you hold this up to ridicule, but offer no evidence that
it isn't true.
83) Indeed, when Judyth was first "shopping around" her manuscript to top
New York publishers, she made it clear that she wanted a million dollars for
the story.
Fact: Once again, you cite an anonymous source for something for which there
is no other evidence.
She was told by her agent that she had "a million dollar book." At no point,
as far as I have been
aware, was she demanding that sum. I'm sure everyone "wants" a million
dollars, but based on your
anonymous source, you make it sound like she would take nothing less. Your
suggestion that it was
all about making money is further undermined by the fact that she cooperated
with "60 Minutes,"
which wasn't paying her for her account; she cooperated with a documentary
team in Dallas,
which wasn't paying her for her account; and she cooperated with Nigel
Turner, who didn't pay
her for her account.
84) At one point, she was preparing to go to Dallas during the annual
conspiracy convention (JFK Lancer's "November in Dallas") and tell her story
to anybody who would listen. Team Judyth dissuaded her.
Fact: This implies we didn't want her to tell her account AT the conference.
In fact, we advised her
that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to COMPETE with the conference, as
she planned to do.
Falsehood by omission is no better than falsehood by commission--and you
frequently omit key
information, John.
85) CBS News' "60 Minutes" considered her story at length, but decided they
didn't believe her.
Fact: You have no evidence to support this claim. To the contrary, Don
Hewitt's interview, broadcast
on C-SPAN, said they DID believe her, as did e-mails from the "60 Minutes"
segment producer, and
a message from Mike Wallace, whose segment it was to be.
86) All ten of your "Acknowledgements" are to Judyth-bashers.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4768a8b4...@news.newsguy.com...
> On 18 Dec 2007 21:31:33 -0500, polly brown <pame...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 18, 1:15 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>> On 17 Dec 2007 15:12:20 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >Which 'issue' are you complaining about? The fact that those of you
>>> >who are anti-Garrison cannot but be
>>> >anti-Judyth? Or the fact that you and Reitzes have felt it necessary
>>> >to post disinfo pages on Judyth because she presents too much of a
>>> >threat for you to treat her ethically?
>>>
>>> Sashay(tm)!!
>>>
>>> You can't point out any inaccuracies on my page, nor on Reitzes.
>
> I said you can't point out any inaccuracies on my page.
>
> Want to give it a try?
> Point to an inaccuracy, Pamela.
>
> If you can't, it's going to be obvious that you respond to these kinds
> of issues with pure emotion, and not logic or evidence.
>>
>>You have not presented any factual issues on your page.
>
> Anybody can see that's not true.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
polly brown
Pamela
On Dec 20, 12:18 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> "John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:4768a8b4...@news.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> > On 18 Dec 2007 21:31:33 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 18, 1:15 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >>> On 17 Dec 2007 15:12:20 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>> >Which 'issue' are you complaining about? The fact that those of you
> >>> >who are anti-Garrison cannot but be
> >>> >anti-Judyth? Or the fact that you and Reitzes have felt it necessary
> >>> >to post disinfo pages on Judyth because she presents too much of a
> >>> >threat for you to treat her ethically?
>
> >>> Sashay(tm)!!
>
> >>> You can't point out any inaccuracies on my page, nor on Reitzes.
>
> > I said you can't point out any inaccuracies on my page.
>
> > Want to give it a try?
> > Point to an inaccuracy, Pamela.
>
> > If you can't, it's going to be obvious that you respond to these kinds
> > of issues with pure emotion, and not logic or evidence.
>
> >>You have not presented any factual issues on your page.
>
> > Anybody can see that's not true.
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
> > .John
> > --
> > Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Martin Shackelford
you seriously
expect anyone to believe that when you cite "e-mail from Louis Girdler," for
example, that
you are in fact quoting Judyth Baker? If that were true, one would assume
that you might,
as you do in some other footnotes, include the actual QUOTE "from Judyth
Baker," but
you fail to do so.
And I'm sure we all look forward to your post of the permission to use the
photo of
Judyth given by the copyright holder, the Manatee High School newspaper.
As for the ethics, I've just discussed those problem (all 86 of them) in
another post.
So much for your challenge "if you could, you would." It doesn't occur to
you that
people frequently don't want to waste the considerable amount of time it
takes to
corrrect your massive misinformation.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4768a9c3...@news.newsguy.com...
Martin Shackelford
I just posted 86 problems with McAdams' webpage on Judyth Baker.
I can understand why Pamela didn't want to waste her time ploughing
through that pile of garbage--but your assumption that her lack of interest
in doing so "proves" that the garbage is nutritious food is absurd.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:26ihm3h56l6sn50em...@4ax.com...
Anthony Marsh
Slander which ones? Like Ford? Yes, for his lie about the back wound.
And for being an FBI informant.
polly brown
> On 19 Dec 2007 23:33:12 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
Why are you refusing to discuss the top I presented? Would you care to
define how you, a college prof, with students looking up to you, can find
it of value to put libelous web pages on Judyth, Garrison and Lane? How
can a respected university be comfortable hosting pages that are filled
with the venomous claim that these people are liars? They are not liars.
Do you not have a sufficient enough understanding of pol science to be
able to distinguish and objective page from a slander page?
Unfortunately, your making demands on other topics than the one I am
addressing speaks volumes as well.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Dec 19, 10:35 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 19 Dec 2007 23:33:12 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Each of your pages on Judyth, Garrison and Lane is designed to say they
>> >are liars. They are not liars.
>>
>> Prove it.
>>
>> >That is slander, or more specifically,
>> >libel. Why not own up to that?
>>
>> Why not engage issues.
>>
>> You just can't do it, can you?
>>
>> Do you simply not know enough about the assassination to debate
>> specifics?
>>
And just as I predicted, Pamela cannot address the issue.
>
>Why are you refusing to discuss the top I presented? Would you care to
>define how you, a college prof, with students looking up to you, can find
>it of value to put libelous web pages on Judyth, Garrison and Lane? How
>can a respected university be comfortable hosting pages that are filled
>with the venomous claim that these people are liars? They are not liars.
>Do you not have a sufficient enough understanding of pol science to be
>able to distinguish and objective page from a slander page?
>
You need to go back and take college logic, Pamela.
You are *assuming* that Judyth, Mark Lane and Jim Garrison were all
entirely honest.
But they weren't.
I have posted a lot of evidence of that, and you can't refute it.
>Unfortunately, your making demands on other topics than the one I am
>addressing speaks volumes as well.
>
Just can't discuss matters of evidence, can you?
Don't know how, I guess.
Martin Shackelford
evidence," of which I posted 86 regarding your webpage last night.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:476b2812...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Inaccurate/misleading "information" on your Judyth webpage-- reasons not
>to believe you.
>
>1) Among fellow students who remember her, opinion is about evenly split
>between remembering her as "intelligent" and remembering her as "weird,"
> Fact: Contemporary articles show her to have been a popular student at
>Manatee High School. You
> ignore all information about her except the content of an e-mail
>from one of her attackers,
> Robert Johnson.
>
But Johnson contacted several of her cohorts at the high school.
What "contemporary articles" show her to have been "popular?"
Contemporary articles show her to have been a good science student.
>2) conducted "cancer research" with mice.
> Fact: She conducted cancer research. Putting quotes around it implies that
>she may not have.
>
No, it implies that high school students don't do serious research.
>3) a biographical blurb...two versions...one a bit "sanitized"
> Fact: The claim that it was sanitized and the "reasons" given are your
>opinion, not facts.
>
Since I posted both versions, people can make up their own minds about
this.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sanitize.htm
>4) an outline, entitled "Deadly Alliance"...Carefully formatted and
>polished, this is the "official"
> version of her story--at least it was when it was written.
> Fact: This one one of a long series of outline drafts that went back and
>forth between Howard
> Platzman, who wrote them, and Judyth, copied to a few others for
>comments--none of them
> were "the official version" of her account. You go on to say that
>references to her account
> refer to this outline--and thus, you again mislead.
>
This is Clintonian quibbling. It was carefully polished, and was
*the* official account -- at least when it was published.
>5) She was thus drawn into the orbit of very sinister people and eventually
>into a plot that had the intention of killing Castro, but ended up killing
>JFK instead.
> Fact: "sinister" is your favorite term, but is not from Judyth's
>account, as you imply. The plot
Nonsense. Of *course* it's in her account. She identifies all these
people as having CIA, intelligence, etc. ties.
> against Castro wasn't the same as the plot against JFK, as you claim.
Actually, Judyth says it *was.*
<quote on>
In 1963, the unsuccessful CIA-Mafia alliance to kill Castro --
top-secret until exposed by the Church Committee in 1975 -- was
directly linked to the JFK assassination conspiracy. “Plan A” called
for Castro to be killed through the use of a biological weapon that
would make his death appear natural. If he could not be killed by
October 25, 1963, the same group of conspirators would go to “Plan B”:
killing Kennedy.
<quote off>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/alliance.pdf
>Much later in your
> essay, you mention that she says Ferrie was OPPOSED to the plot against
>JFK, which
> hardly argues for your claim that the two plots were the same.
See above.
>You
>repeat the same error
> much later: "After the plot to kill Castro failed, the plotters turned
>to "Plan B," the
> assassination of Kennedy." You insert the term "sinister"
>repeatedly--but it never
> comes from her.
>
OIC. It was a *nonsinister* plot to kill the President of the United
States.
Thanks. I'll fix that immediately.
>6) The "interesting" time in her life was the summer of 1963, when she was
>in New Orleans.
> Fact: Quite a few times in her life have been "interesting."
>
None nearly as "interesting" as cavorting with Oswald, Jack Ruby, Clay
Shaw, David Ferrie, and a conspiratorial cast of thousands!
>7) What brought Judyth and Lee together was a plot, centered in New Orleans,
>to produce a bioweapon for the purpose of killing Fidel Castro.
> Fact: They met at the New Orleans Post Office, before Judyth was
>involved in the "plot." Much later
> in your essay, you mention this meeting yourself.
>
So she *wasn't* brought to New Orleans to work with the plot?
THAT CONTRADICTS HERE OWN CLAIMS.
>8) The research was done in the apartments of Ferrie and Sherman.
> Fact: The account states that the research was done at Ferrie's
>apartment and another one a
> short distance from his on the same street--none of the research was
>done at Sherman's apt.
>
Again, from the official account:
<Quote on>
In early May, Judyth was told Ochsner had set up both Ferrie’s
home-based cancer lab, as well as a smaller lab in the apartment of
Dr. Mary Sherman, a luminary at Ochsner’s Clinic. The labs were
devoted to “the medical side of subversive matters,” i.e., a form of
biological warfare.
<Quote off>
Do you not even *notice* when she changes here story, Martin?
>9) However, instead of using their sophisticated bioweapon concoction on
>him, they decided to simply shoot him.
> Fact: This comment makes no sense, and is simply included to ridicule
>Judyth's account.
>
Of course it makes sense. Or at least my prose makes sense.
Judyth's account makes no sense at all.
>10) Oswald, who liked Kennedy, was an unwilling participant in the plot, but
>never defected nor told the authorities about the plan.
> Fact: According to her account, Oswald willingly infiltrated the plot,
>he was not "an unwilling
> participant." She also believes that he DID tell authorities about the
>plan.
>
<Quote on>
Fearing he was a dead man if he tried to break with the conspirators
at this point, he would join them, walking with eyes wide open into
the patsy role. He hoped to get close to the inner circle of the
conspiracy in Dallas and, claims Judyth, stop the plot
from the inside.
<Quote off>
"Would be a dead man!"
>11) That the CIA would need to develop a bioweapon to kill Castro is
>farfetched, since they had a variety of poisons that would have killed him -
>including some that would do so without it being obvious he was in fact
>murdered.
> Fact: As has been pointed out here many times, the CIA was engaging in
>much more "far-fetched"
> plans against Castro. Do you recall the sound and light show that was
>supposed to convince the
> Cubans that the Second Coming had arrived? Nope, the CIA would never do
>anything "far-fetched."
> In a footnote, you cite Dave Blackburst for a list of "far-fetched"
>anti-Castro projects by Ferrie.
You miss the point, which was that the CIA already *had* toxins to
kill Castro.
And they had real researchers to produce them.
>
>12) Further, when the CIA wanted scientific research done, they were able to
>recruit top-notch Ph.D.-level university talent.
> Fact: Tony Marsh has refuted this nonsense several times, citing
>non-Ph.D. people working on
> "scientific research" for the CIA.
>
No, he hasn't.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1950/mkultra/Hearing01.htm
Note the part where is discusses the number of universities involved
in MKULTRA, and the number of "distinguished researchers, some of our
most outstanding members of our scientific community" who were
involved.
>13) a reputable doctor (Sherman) who was in fact an orthopedic surgeon.
> Fact: ALL of the articles on Sherman's death described her as a cancer
>researcher. You imply
> that, being "in fact an orthopedic surgeon" that she wouldn't be doing
>cancer research. False.
> You bury an admission that she did cancer research in a footnote--and
>then minimize it.
>
She was an orthopedic surgeon who treated bone cancer. A simple fact.
>14) The mice, by the way, were long gone from his apartment by the summer
>of 1963.
> Fact: This is one of the unsourced statements in the article, of which
>there are quite a few.
>
I got it from Dave Blackburst, the top Ferrie expert in the world.
>15) Real CIA research was done in university labs, or at secure military
>installations.
> Fact: This is false. CIA research was conducted in a variety of places.
>Some of their drug
> research, for example, was conducted at a brothel.
>
I think you mean *tested* in a brothel. Nobody does serious drug
research in a brothel.
>16) Judyth's supposed encounter with Michaelson would have taken place when
>she was a first semester sophomore in high school. Given the CIA's ability
>to recruit top-notch Ph.D. talent, it's a bit odd to be told that they were
>scouting high school students.
> Fact: First, you imply that Judyth may not have had an encounter with
>Michaelson; secondly, you
Right. I've only seen her word on this.
> imply that she claimed he was there specifically for the purpose of
>"scouting high school students."
> She never says this.
>
She very clearly implies it. She calls him a "CIA asset," for
example.
And are you really saying that *nobody* was grooming her for some
sinister assignment at this point?
>17) In the caption to the photo you included without permission,
Who owns the copyright to the photo, Martin?
If Judyth owns a print, that does *not* means she owns publication
rights to the image.
>you say:
>She and her supporters have produced hard evidence of only two elements of
>her story: (1) she was a good science student in high school and (2) she
>worked at the Reily Coffee Company at the same time as Lee Oswald.
> Fact: As discussed in detail over the past few months, she was far more
>than "a good science
> student in high school." The evidence indicates that she was an
>EXCEPTIONAL science
> student. She was also a fine science student in college, which you
>ignore. As for the second
> point, you continue to minimize--they began on the same day, moved from
>Standard to Reily
> on the same day, and her job placed her near the time clock, where
>employees clocked in
> and out. Documentation has also been provided of other points, which
>you ignore. Even
> when you have conceded additional points, you haven't updated your
>webpage to correct it.
>
Martin, my statement is correct.
Your notion of *evidence* doesn't meet standard historical standards.
>18) In the course of accusing her of being "slipshod" about science, you
>cite an anonymous source. You
> also ignore the fact, by focusing on her inaccurate recollection of a
>drug's name, that intelligence
> agencies HAVE used a drug that induces death, and appears to be from a
>heart attack.
>
OIC. She was only "inaccurate" about "sodium morphate."
And kindly post some evidence that real intelligence agencies have
used the drug.
And Martin . . . I won't be impressed if you post the kind of source
that Judyth got her story from.
>19) You cite "Dutch sources" for a statement which you say she later
>changed--but in the past, you
> have posted mistranslations of "Dutch sources," so this is hardly
>credible.
>
Kindly post some evidence of "mistranslations."
Oh, I know! Judyth *told* you something was mistranslated.
Kindly specify something in the article that you think is the result
of a mistranslation of the Dutch.
Here is the article. Be specific.
http://web.archive.org/web/20051229165156/http://www.groene.nl/2003/0325/rz_kennedy.html
>20) How the CIA - which failed to even once expose Castro to any of the
>toxins it had - was going to arrange for the repeated doses of radiation is
>something Judyth didn't explain.
> Fact: The explanation was in her book, and had appeared in earlier
>sources as well--but again,
> you never updated your webpage to reflect this.
>
I don't have time to deal with the every-changing permutations of
Judyth's story. As of the time I wrote it, no explanation was
available.
Further, I can't imagine one that would be plausible!
Post her explanation right here, Martin.
I'm not going over the rest of your claims, since I have a life beyond
this newsgroup.
But none of them are any better than the first 20.
But if you'll respond to the ones above, I'll work my way through the
list.
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Your "humble opinion" lacks merit, Barb.
>I just posted 86 problems with McAdams' webpage on Judyth Baker.
Haven't seen it yet, probably in this pile somewhere...will keep an
eye out for it.
>
>I can understand why Pamela didn't want to waste her time ploughing
>through that pile of garbage--
If she hasn't already read it ... then how does she know it is full of
errors and is disinfo?
If she HAS read it and noted all those errors .... surely she should
be able to recall and post just ONE.
>but your assumption that her lack of interest
>in doing so "proves" that the garbage is nutritious food is absurd.
You're the one making the assumption, Martin ... and like the
assumptions you make on Judyth all over the place, absurd is a good
word.
If you and Pamela would spend less time whining about others and even
a little time posting cites for your claims, there could be some
actual discussion and people could reach their own conclusuions based
on something real.
It's clear who does do that ... and who won't.
Barb :-)
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
I see lots of quibbling, but so far no demonstrable facts presented to
refute John's article.
> 7) What brought Judyth and Lee together was a plot, centered in New Orleans,
> to produce a bioweapon for the purpose of killing Fidel Castro.
> � � Fact: They met at the New Orleans Post Office, before Judyth was
> involved in the "plot." Much later
> � � in your essay, you mention this meeting yourself.
Martin, do you even know what a fact is?
Your "Facts" are nothing but the same unsubstantiated claims we've
been hearing for nearly a decade.
Dave
> girlfriend's fianc�. The two got married in September of 1963. Harris grew
> suspicious of the story when Judyth could not recall the name of the woman,
> in spite of their supposedly having been best friends in high school.
> � � � �Fact: So she couldn't recall the name after 35 years. I have an
> article with the woman's name,
> � � � �talking about her wedding shower.
>
> 26) You also pretend that if certain pieces of evidence weren't mentioned in
> her early writings, they
> � �must not have existed yet, implying that she created them. In fact, she
> was going through boxes of
> � �her belongings, and over time, located additional documentation.
>
> 27) You say she claimed to have "Lee's shower shoes," but your only cite is
> an e-mail from Louis
> � �Girdler, another of Judyth's attackers. You cite nothing written by
> Judyth. Girdler is the source of
> � �another claim you had to withdraw, that Howard had somehow made financial
> promises to Anna
> � �Lewis for her account, despite the fact that she had made an audio
> recording of her account well
> � �before ever meeting Howard, and despite that fact that the videotaping of
> her account was
> � �something that someone else
> ...
>
> read more �
Barb Junkkarinen
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 20 Dec 2007 19:12:28 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
><msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Your "humble opinion" lacks merit, Barb.
>>I just posted 86 problems with McAdams' webpage on Judyth Baker.
I haven't seen this post ... can somebody tell me the thread title or
repost/point me to this list?
Thanks.
Barb :-)
polly brown
wrote:
> Apparently you are still too busy bashing Pamela to "discuss matters of
> evidence," of which I posted 86 regarding your webpage last night.
>
> Martin
>
Agreed, Martin. McAdams seems to have no interest in looking objectively
at Judyth's documentation or statements. Nor is he willing to acknowledge
that he has apparently deliberately put up a disinfo/misinfo page on
Judyth that seems to be devised as a troll, in that he then makes demands
that posters discuss it in detail. He also refuses to address the fact
that the purpose of the page is to present Judyth as a liar, which she is
not. Instead, he huffs and puffs and makes demand that we 'engage' in a
discussion of the disinfo, which he claims to be 'fact'.
Also, one might think that McAdams would have an example to set, being a
prof to u students. One would think he would make it a priority to be
objective and upstanding regarding what is on his web pages. We might
think that marquette would have a vested interest in the pages their
server is hosting, and also the prof using their email address.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.themagicflute.org
www.in-broad-daylight.com
JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine Documentary at Youtube:
http://youtube.com/profile?user=pamina58
My trade list at Bookins.Com:
http://www.bookins.com/rssreader/trade/1cz6c91cA/
http://yearofmozart2006.blogspot.com/
http://www.pipertothealternative.blogspot.com/
http://www.viennamystery.blogspot.com/ and
http://www.taowoofchu.blogspot.com/
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Apparently you are still too busy bashing Pamela to "discuss matters of
>evidence," of which I posted 86 regarding your webpage last night.
>
I debunked the first 20, and decided I was not going to stay up all
night to do them all.
Basically, all you did was "refute" points on my web page by assuming
that it was "inaccurate" if it disagreed with Judyth.
Indeed, disagreed with what Judyth *now* says, notwithstanding that I
accurately reported what she *was* saying.
cdddraftsman
wrote:
> Your "humble opinion" lacks merit, Barb.
> I just posted 86 problems with McAdams' webpage on Judyth Baker.
> I can understand why Pamela didn't want to waste her time ploughing
> through that pile of garbage--but your assumption that her lack of interest
> in doing so "proves" that the garbage is nutritious food is absurd.
>
> Martin
>
Clarificaion Martin ? Which " pile of garbage " are you refering to ?
Judyth's or McAdam's post about Judyth's story ? Just curious .
tl
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Inaccurate/misleading "information" on your Judyth webpage-- reasons not
>to believe you.
>
Since I have a little time on my hands, I'll do a few more of these.
But my guess is that Martin won't respond.
>
>21) She has a green glass, of the sort that Reily gave to customers as a
>premium, that she says that Lee stole and gave to her, and which she
>treasures. How do we know that Lee gave it to her? She says he did.
> Fact: You omit the fact that her family has known about the significance
>of the green glass since as
> far back as 1980. Was she planning a hoax back then? If so, why did she
>wait until 1998?
>
In the first place, I haven't seen evidence that her family remembers
her talking about an affair with Oswald that far back.
Her sister was in THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY, and didn't say anything
of the kind.
So if you expect me to take you seriously, document your claim.
Further, she may have been telling tall tales that far back.
Or her "family" (name the people you are talking about) may have had
their memories contaminated by what Judyth told them years later.
>22) The release of her book (which was quickly withdrawn)
>
> Fact: Her book was published in May 2006. It was withdrawn in September
>2007. In other words,
> it was in print for 16 months. I don't call that "quickly withdrawn."
>
I do.
>23) Interestingly, Anna Lewis, with her important "corroboration" of Judyth's
>story, doesn't appear in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."
> Fact: You omit that Anna gave permission for Turner to use her January
>2000 interview. You also
> omit that Turner chose to present her account simply as an interview
>of Judyth, despite the fact that
> he had filmed forty hours worth of material, including extensive
>documentation.
>
That's what you *claim,* but you haven't backed it up.
As for "extensive documentation:" are you claiming to have shown
Turner stuff that you haven't shown to *us?*
If so, why haven't you make it public?
If it was just the stuff we all know about, it doesn't prove anything.
And why would Turner *omit* all this dynamite material that
corroborated Judyth? The only reason I can think of is that it didn't
do any such thing.
>24) The dates with David and Anna Lewis don't appear in the earlier versions
>of her story.
> Fact: Based on your earlier reference, one assumes you refer to the
>"Deadly Alliance" outline.
> Many details which had been mentioned in her e-mails did not yet
>appear in the outline, as it
> was a work in progress--by Howard--something you never mention.
>
OIC. There was this dandy witness that vindicated Judyth and all her
claims and you *omitted* her!
>25) For example, she told researcher Robert Harris that she and Lee
>double-dated with an old girlfriend of hers from high school and the
>girlfriend's fiancé. The two got married in September of 1963. Harris grew
>suspicious of the story when Judyth could not recall the name of the woman,
>in spite of their supposedly having been best friends in high school.
> Fact: So she couldn't recall the name after 35 years. I have an
>article with the woman's name,
> talking about her wedding shower.
>
But it was "an old girlfriend of hers from high school." Not Anna and
David Lewis.
>26) You also pretend that if certain pieces of evidence weren't mentioned in
>her early writings, they
> must not have existed yet, implying that she created them. In fact, she
>was going through boxes of
> her belongings, and over time, located additional documentation.
>
Why did she tell Harris "an old girlfriend of hers from high school?"
Did she have to go through boxes of stuff before she decided "oh! It
was Anna Lewis!"
>27) You say she claimed to have "Lee's shower shoes," but your only cite is
>an e-mail from Louis
> Girdler, another of Judyth's attackers. You cite nothing written by
>Judyth. Girdler is the source of
> another claim you had to withdraw, that Howard had somehow made financial
>promises to Anna
> Lewis for her account, despite the fact that she had made an audio
>recording of her account well
> before ever meeting Howard, and despite that fact that the videotaping of
>her account was
> something that someone else sprung on us, something of which Howard
>wasn't aware in advance.
> The dead giveaway, of course, was when Girdler described Howard's
>PHYSICAL reactions
> during his "admission," despite Girdler's claim that the "admission" came
>in a phone call. Either
> Girdler or David Lifton added the physical reactions to the
>account--based on nothing.
> By the way, if Judyth indeed did learn about the "shower shoes" in the
>Archives, what would she
> supposedly gain from claiming to be in possession of them, knowing the
>Archives had them?
>
She probably didn't know that, in fact, they were in the Archives.
She seems to have picked up a lot of stuff and thrown it into her
account, but she doesn't really know all the minute details.
If she did, she would be really dangerous.
>28) On letters to Lee, you cite Robert Baker's second wife Rose, who had no
>direct knowledge
> of the nature of the relationship between Judyth and Robert in 1963, and
>was thus in no
> position to characterize any letter as probably having been written to
>Robert, and not Lee.
>
Except for Robert telling her that.
And knowing Robert and Judyth.
And she apparently had personal knowledge of the letters, which were
in the possession of *Robert!*
Simple fact: the letters (or letter) conveniently have the addressee
torn off.
>29) her former husband remembers that, rather than being mysteriously "set
>up" with the job at Reily Coffee Company, she got it when she got tired of
>flipping hamburgers at a local burger joint.
> Fact: Her former husband has no direct knowledge regarding the
>matter--at the time, he was
> working in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, if the job was arranged as a
>cover, why would she
> tell him that?
>
In the first place, what I wrote is entirely correct.
You are just trying claim that she was deep into a plot and lied to
him.
>30) he brought home a newspaper and was studying it closely and said, "I
>think I may have seen this guy. He was a stocker or something. I think I saw
>him in the back room."
> Fact: You seem to assume that she would blurt out that she had an affair
>with him.
>
Again, the key thing is that her story has changed. Readers, in the
context of the while article can decide for themselves whether they
believe the early version or the new version.
>31) Her classmates at Manatee High School do indeed remember her doing
>cancer research, but it was a rather amateurish sort.
> Fact: This is another cite to Judyth attacker Robert Johnson, referring
>to a comment by a SINGLE
> former classmate. It completely misrepresents the quality of her
>research, which was good enough
> to get her the ONLY Florida invite to Roswell Park.
>
She let her rats get out and run loose. Then she *color coded* them,
which is absurdly amateurish, given that it blows all to hell any
possibility to do a "blind" study.
>32) When you question her account of learning Russian, your only cite is the
>alleged Mary Ferrell
> attack e-mail, which Mary (on tape) denied writing. You cite it again as
>a source later.
>
Of course I do, since she did write it.
You guys were claiming that it got diverted to somewhere in California
before it arrived in my mailbox, but I looked at the headers, and it
came directly from Mary's ISP to the mail server at marquette.edu.
Then you guys claimed that somebody else got access to her computer.
People eventually get tired of implausible excuses, Martin.
>33) By 2003, when Judyth was interviewed for "The Men Who Killed Kennedy",
>the business about speaking Russian to Lee was missing, and instead Judyth
>explained that Lee was so "clean cut" that when he offered to walk her home
>she agreed.
> Fact: This wasn't a change, but was also part of her original account.
>
Then post the "original accoount" that said this.
This is what she said in an e-mail in 2000:
<Quote on>
It was through this amazing coincidence that Lee thought I knew so
much.
He was standing behind me [at the post office] for general delivery,
April 26, when I went to get a letter from the general delivery.
. . .
As I got the letter, I reached for it, and dropped the newspaper, and
when Lee picked it up, without realizing it, I thanked him in Russian.
I was always practicing Russian (which I’d been required to learn to
level of conversational by my doctors, etc – and which is on record at
Manatee (then Jr.) Community College–) – so now Lee heard me saying,
“Karashaw, tavarish!” in Russian, and he answered me quickly, “That’s
not a very wise thing to do, to be speaking Russian in a place like
this.”
That did it, we began talking together.
<Quote off>
>34) virtually all of the people she implicates have had a more-or-less
>prominent place in JFK assassination conspiracy books.
> Fact: This is not true of Dr. Ochsner.
>
Yes it is: at least if one is into the Garrison stuff.
>35) You say that Ochsner was anti-communist "so in the reverse McCarthyism
>that is typical of left-leaning conspiracists, he is suspect."
> Fact: Of course, his anti-communism is NOT why he was included in her
>account. The link was
> their mutual interest in cancer research, and specifically melanoma. As
>Judyth was also "anti-
> communist," this is a specious explanation for why Ochsner was a
>suspect.
>
No, it is exactly why he was "suspect." That's all there is in terms
of "evidence" against him.
The leftists who had Garrison's ear almost persuaded him to arrest
Ochsner!
>36) Interestingly, there was no "Ochsner Cancer Clinic," but rather only an
>Ochsner Clinic - although of course the latter could treat cancer as it
>could treat most diseases.
> Fact: This seems an attempt to evade the fact that Ochsner was a
>leading cancer expert.
>
But "Ochsner Cancer Clinic" was wrong.
You messed the facts.
>37) Judyth's account finds Ochsner sinister because: Author Thomas Karnes
>(Tropical Enterprise) describes Ochsner as a consultant to the US Air Force
>"on the medical side of subversive matters."
> Fact: Again, "sinister" is your own inserted word--she doesn't use it,
>but this is your second attempt
This is your evidence that Ochsner was supposed some sort of spook!
> to attribute it to "her account." As noted, she was also
>anti-communist, and the idea that she picked
> Ochsner to implicate in some sort of mirror-McCarthyism makes no sense
>whatsoever.
>
She may be anti-Communist -- isn't everybody these days? (Oh! Wait!
There are some folks left over from the 60s.)
But Ochsner got to be a suspect because leftists who had Garrison's
ear, and leftists writing since were engaged in mirror-McCarthyism
(goo term).
Judyth, who seems relatively nonideological, picked this up.
>38) It then goes on to claim . . . In early May, Judyth was told Ochsner had
>set up both Ferrie's home-based cancer lab, as well as a smaller lab in the
>apartment of Dr. Mary Sherman, a luminary at Ochsner's Clinic. The labs were
>devoted to "the medical side of subversive matters," i.e., a form of
>biological warfare.
> Fact: Presumably "it" refers to the outline written--not by Judyth, but
>by Howard Platzman.
>
But it has Judyth's name on it!
So now you are going to claim that Platzman just went off writing wild
stuff that Judyth had nothing to do with, eh?
Judyth was sending it around to people via e-mail.
Was she distributing nonsense?
Martin, you have basically admitted that Judyth's early accounts were
a bunch of garbage.
But, "don't pay any attention to that!" "Everything is explained in
her *current* version."
>39) In the first place, the Air Force isn't the same thing as the CIA, and
>it's the latter, not the former, that Judyth has as a key mover in the plot.
> Fact: Karnes, not Judyth, mentions the Air Force.
>
Right. Ochsner had apparently helped the Air Force.
But that's *still* not the same thing as the CIA.
>40) Ochsner had an outstanding reputation as a humanitarian - a fact that
>left-leaning conspiracists, obsessed with his anti-Communism - never bother
>to discuss.
> Fact: So what? This has nothing to do with whether or not he would have
>been involved with an
> anti-Castro plot. He is well-documented as having been a key figure in
>New Orleans anti-Castro
> activities.
>
I was pointing out that leftists smear him, and paint him as some sort
of evil person, when in fact he was an admirable fellow.
You really have nothing but quibbles, Martin.
This has all been hashed over on the newsgroup. You've convinced
nobody.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:10:22 -0800, Barb Junkkarinen
>
>
> >>Your "humble opinion" lacks merit, Barb.
> >>I just posted 86 problems with McAdams' webpage on Judyth Baker.
>
> I haven't seen this post ... can somebody tell me the thread title or
> repost/point me to this list?
>
> Thanks.
> Barb :-)
You're not missing anything, but here 'tis:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ca1b2d0796d18012
Dave
polly brown
has established her credentials. But Barb 'has' to dismiss them all.
Why?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.themagicflute.org
www.in-broad-daylight.com
JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine Documentary at Youtube:
http://youtube.com/profile?user=pamina58
My trade list at Bookins.Com:
http://www.bookins.com/rssreader/trade/1cz6c91cA/
http://yearofmozart2006.blogspot.com/
http://www.pipertothealternative.blogspot.com/
http://www.viennamystery.blogspot.com/ and
http://www.taowoofchu.blogspot.com/
On Dec 21, 1:10 am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2007 19:12:28 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >Your "humble opinion" lacks merit, Barb.
> >I just posted 86 problems with McAdams' webpage onJudythBaker.
>
> Haven't seen it yet, probably in this pile somewhere...will keep an
> eye out for it.
>
>
>
> >I can understand why Pamela didn't want to waste her time ploughing
> >through that pile of garbage--
>
> If she hasn't already read it ... then how does she know it is full of
> errors and is disinfo?
>
> If she HAS read it and noted all those errors .... surely she should
> be able to recall and post just ONE.
>
> >but your assumption that her lack of interest
> >in doing so "proves" that the garbage is nutritious food is absurd.
>
> You're the one making the assumption, Martin ... and like the
> assumptions you make onJudythall over the place, absurd is a good
> word.
>
> If you and Pamela would spend less time whining about others and even
> a little time posting cites for your claims, there could be some
> actual discussion and people could reach their own conclusuions based
> on something real.
>
> It's clear who does do that ... and who won't.
>
> Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> >Martin
>
> >"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:26ihm3h56l6sn50em...@4ax.com...
> >> On 18 Dec 2007 21:30:02 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Dec 17, 6:08 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>> On 17 Dec 2007 15:41:38 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>> >On Dec 17, 1:15 am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
> >>>> >wrote:
> >>>> >> On 16 Dec 2007 22:57:40 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> >>>> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> >> >On Dec 16, 2:24 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> >> >> On Dec 15, 10:32 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> >> >> > On Dec 15, 12:01 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> >> >> > > On Dec 14, 8:39 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> >>>> >> >> > > wrote:
>
> >>>> >> >> > > > On Dec 13, 11:39 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> >> >> > > > > On Dec 13, 3:15 pm, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> >>>> >> >> > > > > wrote:
>
> >>>> >> >> > > > > > On Dec 11, 10:47 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com>
> >>>> >> >> > > > > > wrote:
>
> >>>> >> >> > > > > > > On Dec 10, 12:19?pm, "Martin Shackelford"
> >>>> >> >> > > > > > > <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> >>>> >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> >>>> >> >> > > > > > > > Wrong again, Leyden, and you know it.
> >>>> >> >> > > > > > > > I had an e-mail from RobertBakerstating that he
> >>>Reitzes' page onJudythis hopeless, except maybe as an example of
> >>>propaganda. Are you suggesting an assignment showing its virtues in that
> >>>regard? Or perhaps a compare and contrast with the McAdams page?
>
> >> I refuse to believe that you really are unable to grasp the quiote
> >> simple concept of being asked to cite one example from this horrible
> >> error ridden smear, propaganda, disinfo page that you keep going on
> >> about to demonstrate your point.
>
> >> Sans doing that, it's nothing but a smear campaign by you!
>
> >> If you coulda, you woulda by now ... in my humble opinion.
>
> >> Oy.
>
> >> Barb :-)
>
> >>>Pamela McElwain-Brown
> >>>www.in-broad-daylight.com- Hide quoted text -
steve
>
> > Fact: Her book was published in May 2006. It was withdrawn in September
> >2007. In other words,
> > it was in print for 16 months. I don't call that "quickly withdrawn."
>
> I do.
expecially when its print on demand. its not like they were printing
out Judyth books for 16 months straight nonstop.
>
> >24) The dates with David and Anna Lewis don't appear in the earlier versions
> >of her story.
> > Fact: Based on your earlier reference, one assumes you refer to the
> >"Deadly Alliance" outline.
> > Many details which had been mentioned in her e-mails did not yet
> >appear in the outline, as it
> > was a work in progress--by Howard--something you never mention.
why the hell is Howard writing it anyway? its Judyth's story, and
she went to school for writing.
>
> OIC. There was this dandy witness that vindicated Judyth and all her
> claims and you *omitted* her!
not very plausible.
>
> >25) For example, she told researcher Robert Harris that she and Lee
> >double-dated with an old girlfriend of hers from high school and the
> >girlfriend's fiancé. The two got married in September of 1963. Harris grew
> >suspicious of the story when Judyth could not recall the name of the woman,
> >in spite of their supposedly having been best friends in high school.
> > Fact: So she couldn't recall the name after 35 years. I have an
> >article with the woman's name,
> > talking about her wedding shower.
>
> But it was "an old girlfriend of hers from high school." Not Anna and
> David Lewis.
which only throws her credibility as Judyth's witness into further
doubt. (lets not foget about her wacky husbands claims that omitted
Judyth)
> Simple fact: the letters (or letter) conveniently have the addressee
> torn off.
i wonder why.
30) he brought home a newspaper and was studying it closely and said,
"I
> >think I may have seen this guy. He was a stocker or something. I think I saw
> >him in the back room."
> > Fact: You seem to assume that she would blurt out that she had an affair
> >with him.
and the seeds of her fantasy were planted!
>31) Her classmates at Manatee High School do indeed remember he doing
> >cancer research, but it was a rather amateurish sort.
> > Fact: This is another cite to Judyth attacker Robert Johnson, referring
> >to a comment by a SINGLE
> > former classmate. It completely misrepresents the quality of her
> >research, which was good enough
> > to get her the ONLY Florida invite to Roswell Park.
>
> She let her rats get out and run loose. Then she *color coded* them,
> which is absurdly amateurish, given that it blows all to hell any
> possibility to do a "blind" study.
the fact that a high school student was doing ANYTHING with cancer
would get them encouragement and special treatment, but as John points
out, it was a pretty amateurish outcome.
> As I got the letter, I reached for it, and dropped the newspaper, and
> when Lee picked it up, without realizing it, I thanked him in Russian.
> I was always practicing Russian (which I'd been required to learn to
> level of conversational by my doctors, etc - and which is on record at
> Manatee (then Jr.) Community College-) - so now Lee heard me saying,
> "Karashaw, tavarish!" in Russian, and he answered me quickly, "That's
> not a very wise thing to do, to be speaking Russian in a place like
> this."
so bad i cant read it and not laugh at how absurd it sounds.
>34) virtually all of the people she implicates have had a more-or-less
> >prominent place in JFK assassination conspiracy books.
> > Fact: This is not true of Dr. Ochsner.
>
> Yes it is: at least if one is into the Garrison stuff.
i believe Judyth was in listening distance to Ed Butler's radio show in
the late 90's, he went over the Oschner/Garrison/Oswald/INCA subject many
times in response to conspiracy calls to his show. on top of what you
pointed out.
>
> >35) You say that Ochsner was anti-communist "so in the reverse McCarthyism
> >that is typical of left-leaning conspiracists, he is suspect."
> > Fact: Of course, his anti-communism is NOT why he was included in her
> >account. The link was
> > their mutual interest in cancer research, and specifically melanoma. As
> >Judyth was also "anti-
> > communist," this is a specious explanation for why Ochsner was a
> >suspect.
the fact of Ochsner's interest in cancer and Garrisons interest in
Ochsner is what opend the door for Judyth to claim what she has. it dosent
matter why Garrison was interested, as long as she could "fill in the
blanks" which is easy for her because Garrison had nothing on Ochsner to
begin with.
>38) It then goes on to claim . . . In early May, Judyth was told Ochsner had
> >set up both Ferrie's home-based cancer lab,
which consisted of a kitchen blender hidden in a cabinet. some set
up for one of the worlds leading physicians.
as well as a smaller lab in the
> >apartment of Dr. Mary Sherman, a luminary at Ochsner's Clinic. The labs were
> >devoted to "the medical side of subversive matters," i.e., a form of
> >biological warfare.
> > Fact: Presumably "it" refers to the outline written--not by Judyth, but
> >by Howard Platzman.
do you realize how incriminating this sounds? a jfk conspiracy buff
writing Judyths manuscript and putting HER name on it afterward? then
claiming "well she didnt know this, that, and the other thing about the
assassination. she didnt read anything about the assassination!" she didnt
have to if a conspiracy buff was doing all the writing. no wonder it looks
like a "mish mash" of every jfk conspiracy angle ever published. what
makes it worse is when team Judyth claims that the buff put things in
there that Judyth never said happened.
>
> Was she distributing nonsense?
>
> Martin, you have basically admitted that Judyth's early accounts were
> a bunch of garbage.
the only conclusion is that is was distributed to sanitize it.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>Martin's 86 problems with McAdams' page on Judyth says it all. Judyth
>has established her credentials. But Barb 'has' to dismiss them all.
>Why?
Read for comprehension, Pamela.
Which part of me saying, below, in reply to Martin:
"Haven't seen it yet, probably in this pile somewhere...will keep an
eye out for it." ...is it that you could not understand?
Which part of that shows me dismissing anything?
Martin said he'd posted this 86 item list ... I said I hadn't seen it
yet but that it was probably somewhere in the pile of posts and would
come across it.
I didn't "dismiss" any of them ... as I hadn't seen the list yet! And
now that I have seen it, I haven't replied and said anything about it
yet.
What I was replying to Martin about mostly, was his dismissive remarks
about why you wouldn't want to go "plougung" thru Dave's Judyth page
to answer the question you've been asked to give an example of what
you find erroneous or disinfo there.
As I said to Martin below ... IF you have not already read it, then
how can you say it is disinformation and erroneous....
IF you have already read it...and it is so grossly error ridden and
disinfo, then why do you have to plough thru anything to cite a
single, simple example of something erroneous or disinfo from Dave's
page.
Perhaps you could answer that yourself....with a real answer. :-)
If you couldn't understand my simple reply to Martin about not having
seen his list yet.....and even started a new thread with my name in
it, saying I dismiss it ... then mayube you can't quite wrap your
orientation around that question either ... but I do hope you'll try.
Looks pretty silly when all you do is wax on and on about others here
personally and dodge, dive and divert from any actual questions on the
issues being discussed ... particularly from your own claims.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Dec 21, 1:26 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:10:22 -0800, Barb Junkkarinen
>>
>> <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On 20 Dec 2007 19:12:28 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
>> ><msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>Your "humble opinion" lacks merit, Barb.
>> >>I just posted 86 problems with McAdams' webpage on Judyth Baker.
>>
>> I haven't seen this post ... can somebody tell me the thread title or
>> repost/point me to this list?
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Barb :-)
>
>
>You're not missing anything, but here 'tis:
Thanks, Dave ... I found it later when someone replied to it.
Barb :-)
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ca1b2d0796d18012
>
>Dave
>
Martin Shackelford
aren't that
many actual facts to refute.
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d4ddf7f8-ebdc-4dc2...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 1:18?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Inaccurate/misleading "information" on your Judyth webpage-- ? reasons not
> to believe you.
>
> 1) Among fellow students who remember her, opinion is about evenly split
> between remembering her as "intelligent" and remembering her as "weird,"
> ?Fact: Contemporary articles show her to have been a popular student at
> Manatee High School. You
> ? ? ? ? ? ignore all information about her except the content of an e-mail
> from one of her attackers,
> ? ? ? ? ?Robert Johnson.
>
> 2) conducted "cancer research" with mice.
> ? Fact: She conducted cancer research. Putting quotes around it implies
> that
> she may not have.
>
> 3) a biographical blurb...two versions...one a bit "sanitized"
> ? ?Fact: The claim that it was sanitized and the "reasons" given are your
> opinion, not facts.
>
> 4) an outline, entitled "Deadly Alliance"...Carefully formatted and
> polished, this is the "official"
> ? ? version of her story--at least it was when it was written.
> ? ? Fact: This one one of a long series of outline drafts that went back
> and
> forth between Howard
> ? ? Platzman, who wrote them, and Judyth, copied to a few others for
> comments--none of them
> ? ? were "the official version" of her account. You go on to say that
> references to her account
> ? ? refer to this outline--and thus, you again mislead.
>
> 5) ?She was thus drawn into the orbit of very sinister people and
> eventually
> into a plot that had the intention of killing Castro, but ended up killing
> JFK instead.
> ? ? Fact: "sinister" is your favorite term, but is not from Judyth's
> account, as you imply. The plot
> ? ? against Castro wasn't the same as the plot against JFK, as you claim.
> Much later in your
> ? ? essay, you mention that she says Ferrie was OPPOSED to the plot
> against
> JFK, which
> ? ? hardly argues for your claim that the two plots were the same. You
> repeat the same error
> ? ? much later: "After the plot to kill Castro failed, the plotters turned
> to "Plan B," the
> ? ? assassination of Kennedy." You insert the term "sinister"
> repeatedly--but it never
> ? ? comes from her.
>
> 6) The "interesting" time in her life was the summer of 1963, when she was
> in New Orleans.
> ? ? Fact: Quite a few times in her life have been "interesting."
I see lots of quibbling, but so far no demonstrable facts presented to
refute John's article.
> 7) What brought Judyth and Lee together was a plot, centered in New
> Orleans,
> to produce a bioweapon for the purpose of killing Fidel Castro.
> ? ? Fact: They met at the New Orleans Post Office, before Judyth was
> involved in the "plot." Much later
> ? ? in your essay, you mention this meeting yourself.
Martin, do you even know what a fact is?
Your "Facts" are nothing but the same unsubstantiated claims we've
been hearing for nearly a decade.
Dave
> 8) The research was done in the apartments of Ferrie and Sherman.
> ? ? ?Fact: The account states that the research was done at Ferrie's
> apartment and another one a
> ? ? ?short distance from his on the same street--none of the research was
> done at Sherman's apt.
>
> 9) However, instead of using their sophisticated bioweapon concoction on
> him, they decided to simply shoot him.
> ? ? ?Fact: This comment makes no sense, and is simply included to ridicule
> Judyth's account.
>
> 10) Oswald, who liked Kennedy, was an unwilling participant in the plot,
> but
> never defected nor told the authorities about the plan.
> ? ? Fact: According to her account, Oswald willingly infiltrated the plot,
> he was not "an unwilling
> ? ? participant." She also believes that he DID tell authorities about the
> plan.
>
> 11) That the CIA would need to develop a bioweapon to kill Castro is
> farfetched, since they had a variety of poisons that would have killed
> him -
> including some that would do so without it being obvious he was in fact
> murdered.
> ? ? Fact: As has been pointed out here many times, the CIA was engaging in
> much more "far-fetched"
> ? ? plans against Castro. Do you recall the sound and light show that was
> supposed to convince the
> ? ? Cubans that the Second Coming had arrived? Nope, the CIA would never
> do
> anything "far-fetched."
> ? ? In a footnote, you cite Dave Blackburst for a list of "far-fetched"
> anti-Castro projects by Ferrie.
>
> 12) Further, when the CIA wanted scientific research done, they were able
> to
> recruit top-notch Ph.D.-level university talent.
> ? ? Fact: Tony Marsh has refuted this nonsense several times, citing
> non-Ph.D. people working on
> ? ? "scientific research" for the CIA.
>
> 13) a reputable doctor (Sherman) who was in fact an orthopedic surgeon.
> ? ? Fact: ALL of the articles on Sherman's death described her as a cancer
> researcher. You imply
> ? ? that, being "in fact an orthopedic surgeon" that she wouldn't be doing
> cancer research. False.
> ? ? You bury an admission that she did cancer research in a footnote--and
> then minimize it.
>
> 14) ?The mice, by the way, were long gone from his apartment by the summer
> of 1963.
> ? ? Fact: This is one of the unsourced statements in the article, of which
> there are quite a few.
>
> 15) Real CIA research was done in university labs, or at secure military
> installations.
> ? ? Fact: This is false. CIA research was conducted in a variety of
> places.
> Some of their drug
> ? ? research, for example, was conducted at a brothel.
>
> 16) Judyth's supposed encounter with Michaelson would have taken place
> when
> she was a first semester sophomore in high school. Given the CIA's ability
> to recruit top-notch Ph.D. talent, it's a bit odd to be told that they
> were
> scouting high school students.
> ? ? ?Fact: First, you imply that Judyth may not have had an encounter with
> Michaelson; secondly, you
> ? ? ?imply that she claimed he was there specifically for the purpose of
> "scouting high school students."
> ? ? ?She never says this.
>
> 17) In the caption to the photo you included without permission, you say:
> She and her supporters have produced hard evidence of only two elements of
> her story: (1) she was a good science student in high school and (2) she
> worked at the Reily Coffee Company at the same time as Lee Oswald.
> ? ? ?Fact: As discussed in detail over the past few months, she was far
> more
> than "a good science
> ? ? ?student in high school." The evidence indicates that she was an
> EXCEPTIONAL science
> ? ? ?student. She was also a fine science student in college, which you
> ignore. As for the second
> ? ? ?point, you continue to minimize--they began on the same day, moved
> from
> Standard to Reily
> ? ? ?on the same day, and her job placed her near the time clock, where
> employees clocked in
> ? ? ?and out. Documentation has also been provided of other points, which
> you ignore. Even
> ? ? ?when you have conceded additional points, you haven't updated your
> webpage to correct it.
>
> 18) In the course of accusing her of being "slipshod" about science, you
> cite an anonymous source. You
> ? ? ?also ignore the fact, by focusing on her inaccurate recollection of a
> drug's name, that intelligence
> ? ? ?agencies HAVE used a drug that induces death, and appears to be from
> a
> heart attack.
>
> 19) You cite "Dutch sources" for a statement which you say she later
> changed--but in the past, you
> ? ? ? have posted mistranslations of "Dutch sources," so this is hardly
> credible.
>
> 20) How the CIA - which failed to even once expose Castro to any of the
> toxins it had - was going to arrange for the repeated doses of radiation
> is
> something Judyth didn't explain.
> ? ? ?Fact: The explanation was in her book, and had appeared in earlier
> sources as well--but again,
> ? ? ?you never updated your webpage to reflect this.
>
> 21) She has a green glass, of the sort that Reily gave to customers as a
> premium, that she says that Lee stole and gave to her, and which she
> treasures. How do we know that Lee gave it to her? She says he did.
> ? ? Fact: You omit the fact that her family has known about the
> significance
> of the green glass since as
> ? ? far back as 1980. Was she planning a hoax back then? If so, why did
> she
> wait until 1998?
>
> 22) ?The release of her book (which was quickly withdrawn)
>
> ? ? Fact: Her book was published in May 2006. It was withdrawn in
> September
> 2007. In other words,
> ? ? it was in print for 16 months. I don't call that "quickly withdrawn."
>
> 23) Interestingly, Anna Lewis, with her important "corroboration" of
> Judyth's
> story, doesn't appear in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."
> ? ? ? Fact: You omit that Anna gave permission for Turner to use her
> January
> 2000 interview. You also
> ? ? ? omit that Turner chose to present her account simply as an interview
> of Judyth, despite the fact that
> ? ? ? he had filmed forty hours worth of material, including extensive
> documentation.
>
> 24) The dates with David and Anna Lewis don't appear in the earlier
> versions
> of her story.
> ? ? ? Fact: Based on your earlier reference, one assumes you refer to the
> "Deadly Alliance" outline.
> ? ? ? Many details which had been mentioned in her e-mails did not yet
> appear in the outline, as it
> ? ? ? was a work in progress--by Howard--something you never mention.
>
> 25) ?For example, she told researcher Robert Harris that she and Lee
> double-dated with an old girlfriend of hers from high school and the
> girlfriend's fianc?. The two got married in September of 1963. Harris grew
> suspicious of the story when Judyth could not recall the name of the
> woman,
> in spite of their supposedly having been best friends in high school.
> ? ? ? ?Fact: So she couldn't recall the name after 35 years. I have an
> article with the woman's name,
> ? ? ? ?talking about her wedding shower.
>
> 26) You also pretend that if certain pieces of evidence weren't mentioned
> in
> her early writings, they
> ? ?must not have existed yet, implying that she created them. In fact, she
> was going through boxes of
> ? ?her belongings, and over time, located additional documentation.
>
> 27) You say she claimed to have "Lee's shower shoes," but your only cite
> is
> an e-mail from Louis
> ? ?Girdler, another of Judyth's attackers. You cite nothing written by
> Judyth. Girdler is the source of
> ? ?another claim you had to withdraw, that Howard had somehow made
> financial
> promises to Anna
> ? ?Lewis for her account, despite the fact that she had made an audio
> recording of her account well
> ? ?before ever meeting Howard, and despite that fact that the videotaping
> of
> her account was
> ? ?something that someone else
> ...
>
> read more ?
Martin Shackelford
doesn't constitute "debunking" it. You did a poor job on the first 20, and
completely ignored the other 66.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:476c6a93...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Martin Shackelford
After it went out of print,
there were further requests for the book that weren't filled.
2. Howard was gathering what Judyth had provided him, and putting it into
outline form. It was an
ongoing project that went through many drafts before it was accurate.
John pretends that one of
the early drafts was Judyth's "official account," and that's total
nonsense. Apparently one of his
Judyth-bashing sources made that claim and he was foolish enough to
believe it. At the time
Howard wrote that draft, he hadn't yet incorporated the information
about the witnesses.
3. After a series of non-rebuttals, you attempt to turn Howard's outlines
into Judyth's manuscript,
which they weren't. She wrote her manuscript in late 1998. Howard based
his outlines on the
materials Judyth had sent him--as she sent him more, he incorporated
more. Later, they
collaborated on a 300-page manuscript, but that had no connection to
Howard's outlines.
4. She threw out their collaborative manuscript, and returned to her own.
No, Howard didn't
write her book.
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d0b1c430-af89-4c48...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
by local beauty queens, other popular students, etc. Why you insist on
trying to limit them to "a good science student" is obvious, John.
2. Prominent scientists felt that she was doing serious research; it was
good
enough to earn her awards, scholarships and a summer program.
3. The outlines were official NOTHING. They were an ongoing effort by
Howard Platzman to assemble all of the elements of Judyth's account in
one place. You have been claiming that one of the early drafts is her
"official account"--that's nonsense. You don't know what you're talking
about, John.
4. I stand by my statement--YOU repeatedly inserted "sinister"--it wasn't
in Judyth's account.
5. No, John, Judyth DOESN"T say the anti-Castro plot was the same plot
as the anti-JFK plot. That's ridiculous. For example, she puts Ferrie in
the anti-Castro plot, but not in the anti-JFK plot. Her account differs
sharply from Garrison's version. You err by quoting Platzman as though
you are quoting Judyth--and an erroneous early draft at that. Then you
cite this error as rebuttal for the next point--an err again.
6. She was originally brought to New Orleans to work with Ochner's cancer
research. When she got there, she became involved with Oswald and
Ferrie, and was used in the anti-Castro plot. Once again you cite the
early Platzman outline draft as "the official account"--erroneously. You
are holding HER accountable for Platzman's early effort. You do the
same thing again a short time later.
7. No, John, YOU are missing the point. The CIA had overlapping,
redundant efforts going on to eliminate Castro. Saying they already
had toxins doesn't remove the possibility of other toxic efforts.
8. Once again, you minimize Dr. Sherman's cancer research, one of
your chronic themes.
9. Dave Blackburst doesn't become "the top Ferrie expert in the world"
because you agree with him, John. None of us has seen his book and
been able to evaluate his research. You remind me of the drug
companies talking about "emerging research suggests..."
10. You are overusing the "Judyth told you" excuse, John. When
mistranslations
from the Dutch were posted here, several English-speaking Dutch
posters at
the time pointed out the errors--not Judyth.
11. You pick and choose what you want to respond to, and then ignore the
rest by claiming too little time. In fact, you always seem to have
time for
things you want to write about, John.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:476b3802...@news.newsguy.com...
steve
wrote:
> 1. Contemporary articles show Judyth's parties were well attended, including
> by local beauty queens, other popular students, etc. Why you insist on
> trying to limit them to "a good science student" is obvious, John.
>
> 2. Prominent scientists felt that she was doing serious research; it was
> good
> enough to earn her awards, scholarships and a summer program.
>
> 3. The outlines were official NOTHING. They were an ongoing effort by
> Howard Platzman to assemble all of the elements of Judyth's account in
> one place. You have been claiming that one of the early drafts is her
> "official account"--that's nonsense. You don't know what you're talking
> about, John.
>
> 4. I stand by my statement--YOU repeatedly inserted "sinister"--it wasn't
> in Judyth's account.
>
> 5. No, John, Judyth DOESN"T say the anti-Castro plot was the same plot
> as the anti-JFK plot. That's ridiculous. For example, she puts Ferrie in
> the anti-Castro plot, but not in the anti-JFK plot.
then why does she have Ferrie threatening her after the JFK hit?
Her account differs
> sharply from Garrison's version. You err by quoting Platzman as though
> you are quoting Judyth--and an erroneous early draft at that. Then you
> cite this error as rebuttal for the next point--an err again.
>
> 6. She was originally brought to New Orleans to work with Ochner's cancer
> research.
and how exactly was this communicated to her? how was she told to
go to new orleans? did the letter self distruct?
When she got there, she became involved with Oswald and
> Ferrie, and was used in the anti-Castro plot. Once again you cite the
> early Platzman outline draft as "the official account"--erroneously. You
> are holding HER accountable for Platzman's early effort. You do the
> same thing again a short time later.
>
> 7. No, John, YOU are missing the point. The CIA had overlapping,
> redundant efforts going on to eliminate Castro. Saying they already
> had toxins doesn't remove the possibility of other toxic efforts.
>
> 8. Once again, you minimize Dr. Sherman's cancer research, one of
> your chronic themes.
>
> 9. Dave Blackburst doesn't become "the top Ferrie expert in the world"
> because you agree with him, John. None of us has seen his book and
> been able to evaluate his research. You remind me of the drug
> companies talking about "emerging research suggests..."
>
> 10. You are overusing the "Judyth told you" excuse, John. When
> mistranslations
> from the Dutch were posted here, several English-speaking Dutch
> posters at
> the time pointed out the errors--not Judyth.
>
> 11. You pick and choose what you want to respond to, and then ignore the
> rest by claiming too little time. In fact, you always seem to have
> time for
> things you want to write about, John.
>
> Martin
>
> "John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:476b3802...@news.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> > On 20 Dec 2007 13:18:15 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>1. Contemporary articles show Judyth's parties were well attended, including
> by local beauty queens, other popular students, etc. Why you insist on
> trying to limit them to "a good science student" is obvious, John.
>
Then post an article showing that *her* parties were attended by all
those folks you mention.
I've seen no such article. If you have it, post it.
BTW, I didn't say she was "unpopular," just that some students
considered her "weird." That's hard not to believe. A girl who was
such a good science student (even a guy of the same sort) is going to
be considered "weird" by a lot of kids.
>2. Prominent scientists felt that she was doing serious research; it was
>good
> enough to earn her awards, scholarships and a summer program.
>
She never, for example, got an NSF grant for a specific research
project. Those are reserved for Ph.D.s.
She got various awards that when to very good science students.
>3. The outlines were official NOTHING. They were an ongoing effort by
> Howard Platzman to assemble all of the elements of Judyth's account in
> one place. You have been claiming that one of the early drafts is her
> "official account"--that's nonsense. You don't know what you're talking
> about, John.
>
Anybody can look at it at see that it is a polished piece of work such
as would be sent to a publisher.
In fact, was it not in fact *sent* to publishers?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/alliance.pdf
You are playing a Clintonesque game of "what is is."
>4. I stand by my statement--YOU repeatedly inserted "sinister"--it wasn't
> in Judyth's account.
>
OK, a *non-sinister* plot to kill Castro, and then kill JFK.
>5. No, John, Judyth DOESN"T say the anti-Castro plot was the same plot
> as the anti-JFK plot. That's ridiculous. For example, she puts Ferrie in
> the anti-Castro plot, but not in the anti-JFK plot. Her account differs
> sharply from Garrison's version. You err by quoting Platzman as though
> you are quoting Judyth--and an erroneous early draft at that. Then you
> cite this error as rebuttal for the next point--an err again.
>
OIC. This is a description of two different plots:
<quote on>
In 1963, the unsuccessful CIA-Mafia alliance to kill Castro --
top-secret until exposed by the Church Committee in 1975 -- was
directly linked to the JFK assassination conspiracy. “Plan A” called
for Castro to be killed through the use of a biological weapon that
would make his death appear natural. If he could not be killed by
October 25, 1963, the same group of conspirators would go to “Plan B”:
killing Kennedy.
<quote off>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/alliance.pdf
But they are different because, although they are the same people,
they call it "Plan B."
As for Ferrie, the following chapter has Ferrie knowing all about the
Kennedy plot:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/endofline.pdf
As for her account "differing from Garrison's version:" I never said
it was identical to Garrison's version. I did say she picked up a
fair amount of stuff from Garrison (via buff writings) and included it
in her account.
>6. She was originally brought to New Orleans to work with Ochner's cancer
> research.
Oh, my! You are actually saying that Ochner would hire somebody who
just finished Freshman year in college to be a cancer researcher.
You are saying she was *not* slated from some sort of sinister use?
Then what is this about:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/alliance.pdf
<quote on>
Judyth is Recruited: To April 1963
By the age of 15, Judyth achieved a reputation as a science whiz kid,
having invented a new way to extract magnesium from seawater.
Her real passion, though, was cancer research. Col. Philip Doyle set
up a special lab for Judyth at her high school (Manatee High, in
Florida), and introduced her to CIA asset, Dr. Canute Michaelson, who
provided financial support for her initial work.
Her appearance at an international science fair brought her to the
attention of other medical figures with military or intelligence
backgrounds, as well as top officials of the American Cancer Society:
Dr.Harold Diehl and Dr. Alton Ochsner (of the famed Ochsner Cancer
Clinic in New Orleans). Ochsner was Judyth’s principal behind-the
scenes mentor through her late teen years.
Judyth’s lab was expanded and she received research materials from
doctors at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Eli Lilly, Oak
Ridge, et al.
She was forced to take a loyalty oath., and, while still in high
school, was required to learn conversational Russian at a local junior
college from a Dr. Concevitch.
Her work came to the attention of Florida Senator George Smathers, a
close friend of JFK’s, who encouraged her to write to the President
and volunteer to put her talents to work in the service of her
country.
Evidence: A reply from the White House. (While not very dramatic, she
soon received fresh supplies, as Sen. Smathers told her she would.)
She spent the summer after high school graduation working under a
National Science Foundation grant at Roswell Park in Buffalo, NY, the
world’s oldest cancer research center. Her studies centered on
"substances which cause cancer to become most deadly."
Of the 60-plus students working under a grant, she was the only
member of the group chosen by Dr. George Moore, head of Roswell Park,
to work directly with him -- and she was the only one forced to stay
at the local YWCA. She was, in essence, “kidnapped” from an off-site
apartment she tried to rent and returned to the Y.
Evidence: Copious newspaper clippings on her achievements.
Corroborating testimony: Judyth recently located a man who also
exhibited at the science fair. He, too, was approached by the CIA, but
his left-wing views made him a poor candidate for recruitment.
Dr. Alton Ochsner
Along with Judyth herself, Ochsner is the primary new figure to emerge
in this account of Oswald’s stay in New Orleans.
Ocshner was friends with Clay Shaw, who was unsuccessfully prosecuted
by New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison for conspiring to assassinate JFK.
Ochsner was director of International House at the same time Clay Shaw
was a managing director. At different times, he and Shaw headed this
organization AND the International Trade Mart. The two merged some
years later.
Ochsner’s biographers quotes him as fearing that he would be indicted
by Garrison (John Wilds and Ira Harkey, Surgeon of the South)
Ochsner was also friends with “Wild Bill” Donovan, head of the OSS,
the prescursor to the CIA. Both were elected officials of the American
Cancer Society in 1949.
Ochsner founded the virulently anti-Communist Information Council of
the Americas (INCA), which later figured heavily into the activities
of both Judyth and Lee.
Author Thomas Karnes (Tropical Enterprise) describes Ochsner as a
consultant to the US Air Force “on the medical side of subversive
matters.”
<Quote off>
But in spite of all this, she was in New Orleans for perfectly
innocent reasons!
> When she got there, she became involved with Oswald and
> Ferrie, and was used in the anti-Castro plot. Once again you cite the
> early Platzman outline draft as "the official account"--erroneously. You
> are holding HER accountable for Platzman's early effort. You do the
> same thing again a short time later.
>
Do you realize how damning it is when you folks disclaim the precise
stuff you were sending out all over the place!
You weren't disclaiming it until people started noticing how absurd it
is.
>7. No, John, YOU are missing the point. The CIA had overlapping,
> redundant efforts going on to eliminate Castro. Saying they already
> had toxins doesn't remove the possibility of other toxic efforts.
>
Actually, yes it does. They had the toxins. What they needed was a
way of getting them into Castro.
The rag-tag band of supposed New Orleans conspirators would have been
no help in that.
>8. Once again, you minimize Dr. Sherman's cancer research, one of
> your chronic themes.
>
She was an orthopedic surgeon. I'm sure if you had bone cancer in
1963 she would have been a dany person to treat you.
>9. Dave Blackburst doesn't become "the top Ferrie expert in the world"
> because you agree with him, John. None of us has seen his book and
> been able to evaluate his research. You remind me of the drug
> companies talking about "emerging research suggests..."
>
Blackburst *is* the "top Ferrie expert in the world."
If you disagree, tell me who really is.
>10. You are overusing the "Judyth told you" excuse, John. When
>mistranslations
> from the Dutch were posted here, several English-speaking Dutch
>posters at
> the time pointed out the errors--not Judyth.
>
Sashay(tm)!!!
I don't remember any such posters.
Let me give you the challenge again: what was mistranslated?
>11. You pick and choose what you want to respond to, and then ignore the
> rest by claiming too little time. In fact, you always seem to have
>time for
> things you want to write about, John.
>
>Martin
>
MARTIN IS PICKING AN CHOOSING!!
Note that below I dealt with his first 20 points.
Here he only deals with 10 of mine!
Lacking time, Martin?
All Martin is doing is denying what the record clearly shows about
Judyth.
He doesn't seem to realize that all the back-pedalling is terribly
damning.
He's saying: "we have put out just a huge amount of garbage. But
ignore that. It doesn't count. It's what we are *currently* saying
that's true."
But all that previous garbage destroys credibility.
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Dave, McAdams' article is largely attack sources and John's opinions. There
>aren't that
>many actual facts to refute.
>
Actually, most of it is Judyth's own words!
--
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>1. Copies of the book were printed and sold every month it was in print.
>After it went out of print,
> there were further requests for the book that weren't filled.
>
>2. Howard was gathering what Judyth had provided him, and putting it into
>outline form. It was an
> ongoing project that went through many drafts before it was accurate.
>John pretends that one of
> the early drafts was Judyth's "official account," and that's total
>nonsense. Apparently one of his
> Judyth-bashing sources made that claim and he was foolish enough to
>believe it. At the time
> Howard wrote that draft, he hadn't yet incorporated the information
>about the witnesses.
>
But how does this explain what you *now* consider misinformation?
There is a difference between an accurate but incomplete account, and
one that's simply garbage.
And why wouldn't Judyth make sure the really *good* evidence was in
there?
>3. After a series of non-rebuttals, you attempt to turn Howard's outlines
>into Judyth's manuscript,
> which they weren't. She wrote her manuscript in late 1998. Howard based
>his outlines on the
> materials Judyth had sent him--as she sent him more, he incorporated
>more. Later, they
> collaborated on a 300-page manuscript, but that had no connection to
>Howard's outlines.
>
OK, so the outline was garbage, but they finally got it fixed in the
manuscript.
But why did Judyth *personally* send the outline out to people?
>4. She threw out their collaborative manuscript, and returned to her own.
>No, Howard didn't
> write her book.
>
These "explanations" damage the credibility of the project as much as
any nonsense in the early sources.
--
Anthony Marsh
> On 31 Dec 2007 10:48:23 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
> <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Dave, McAdams' article is largely attack sources and John's opinions. There
>> aren't that
>> many actual facts to refute.
>>
>
> Actually, most of it is Judyth's own words!
>
Allegedly.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 31 Dec 2007 10:48:23 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
>> <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave, McAdams' article is largely attack sources and John's opinions. There
>>> aren't that
>>> many actual facts to refute.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, most of it is Judyth's own words!
>>
>
>Allegedly.
>
Are you saying that somebody forged all those e-mails, and just
*claimed* they were from Judyth?
.John
polly brown
> On 1 Jan 2008 23:13:08 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 31 Dec 2007 10:48:23 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> >>> Dave, McAdams' article is largely attack sources and John's opinions. There
> >>> aren't that
> >>> many actual facts to refute.
>
> >> Actually, most of it is Judyth's own words!
>
> >Allegedly.
>
> Are you saying that somebody forged all those e-mails, and just
> *claimed* they were from Judyth?
Well, when you start grabbing things under the table, you never know
what you'll get.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jan 1, 10:15=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 1 Jan 2008 23:13:08 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>>
>> <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >John McAdams wrote:
>> >> On 31 Dec 2007 10:48:23 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
>> >> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Dave, McAdams' article is largely attack sources and John's opinions. =
>There
>> >>> aren't that
>> >>> many actual facts to refute.
>>
>> >> Actually, most of it is Judyth's own words!
>>
>> >Allegedly.
>>
>> Are you saying that somebody forged all those e-mails, and just
>> *claimed* they were from Judyth?
>
>Well, when you start grabbing things under the table, you never know
>what you'll get.
>
But Team Judyth has never claimed the e-mails were faked or forged.
But don't give them ideas!
polly brown
wrote:
You refuse to acknowledge that Judth produced a dramatic project. She did
not come forward with witness statements per se. The fact that she chose
to do this has caused a lot of confusion. Judyth's choice of vehicle is
at issue, if there is an issue, not her accounts.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> Dave, McAdams' article is largely attack sources and John's opinions. There
> aren't that
> many actual facts to refute.
>
> Martin
The usual sad evasion from Martin.
Newcomers, check out the nonsense Martin's been promoting for a full
decade:
http://www.jfk-online.com/judythmenu.html
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
Dave
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
Martin Shackelford
be Judyth allegedly being quoted by her attackers, some of whom have
been caught manufacturing things--like Howard's physical reactions on
a phone call!!
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:477b0fd6...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
polly brown
> On 1 Jan 2008 23:23:14 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 1, 10:15=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >> On 1 Jan 2008 23:13:08 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >> <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >John McAdams wrote:
> >> >> On 31 Dec 2007 10:48:23 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
> >> >> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>> Dave, McAdams' article is largely attack sources and John's opinions. =
> >There
> >> >>> aren't that
> >> >>> many actual facts to refute.
>
> >> >> Actually, most of it is Judyth's own words!
>
> >> >Allegedly.
>
> >> Are you saying that somebody forged all those e-mails, and just
> >> *claimed* they were from Judyth?
>
> >Well, when you start grabbing things under the table, you never know
> >what you'll get.
>
> But Team Judyth has never claimed the e-mails were faked or forged.
>
> But don't give them ideas!
>
When emails get passed around without Judyth's knowledge or permission and
then are posted as coming from 'her' you really can't expect everyone to
believe they are pristine, do you? They are what they are --
under-the-table acquisitions.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
John McAdams
wrote:
Team Judyth has never contested that they are authentic. They have
just bitched that people leaked them to me.
But of course, when somebody has e-mailitis the way Judyth does, the
story is going to slip out.
steve
> On Jan 1, 10:25 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Jan 2008 23:23:14 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Jan 1, 10:15=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> > >> On 1 Jan 2008 23:13:08 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> > >> <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> >John McAdams wrote:
> > >> >> On 31 Dec 2007 10:48:23 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
> > >> >> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > >> >>> Dave, McAdams' article is largely attack sources and John's opinions.
> > >> >>> aren't that
> > >> >>> many actual facts to refute.
>
> > >> >> Actually, most of it is Judyth's own words!
>
> > >> >Allegedly.
>
> > >> Are you saying that somebody forged all those e-mails, and just
> > >> *claimed* they were from Judyth?
>
> > >Well, when you start grabbing things under the table, you never know
> > >what you'll get.
>
> > But Team Judyth has never claimed the e-mails were faked or forged.
>
> > But don't give them ideas!
>
> When emails get passed around without Judyth's knowledge or permission and
> then are posted as coming from 'her' you really can't expect everyone to
> believe they are pristine, do you? They are what they are --
> under-the-table acquisitions.
but they were sent out by Judyth in the first place. to claim they are
not what Judyth was putting out(therefore approved) to selected people at
the time is more dishonest than anything McAdams did with them.
steve
> On 3 Jan 2008 00:04:03 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 1, 10:25=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >> On 1 Jan 2008 23:23:14 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> Are you saying that somebody forged all those e-mails, and just
> >> >> *claimed* they were from Judyth?
>
> >> >Well, when you start grabbing things under the table, you never know
> >> >what you'll get.
>
> >> But Team Judyth has never claimed the e-mails were faked or forged.
>
> >> But don't give them ideas!
>
> >When emails get passed around without Judyth's knowledge or permission and
> >then are posted as coming from 'her' you really can't expect everyone to
> >believe they are pristine, do you? They are what they are --
> >under-the-table acquisitions.
>
> Team Judyth has never contested that they are authentic. They have
> just bitched that people leaked them to me.
thats the main point. why all the complaining about it still? if they
were altered or straight out made up, that would be one thing, but nobody
ever said anything like that, they only complained because you posted them
here and on your webpage. the fact is, Judyth sent them out to selected
people, so they had to have been approved by her initially. there is no
twisting this to say that Judyth didnt mean what was said in them. i think
thats why no one on team Judyth has said that yet. they only complain
about you posting them, and not the ridiculous stuff IN the emails.
>
> But of course, when somebody has e-mailitis the way Judyth does, the
> story is going to slip out.
>
> .John
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
polly brown
> On 3 Jan 2008 00:04:03 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 1, 10:25=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >> On 1 Jan 2008 23:23:14 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> Are you saying that somebody forged all those e-mails, and just
> >> >> *claimed* they were from Judyth?
>
> >> >Well, when you start grabbing things under the table, you never know
> >> >what you'll get.
>
> >> But Team Judyth has never claimed the e-mails were faked or forged.
>
> >> But don't give them ideas!
>
> >When emails get passed around without Judyth's knowledge or permission and
> >then are posted as coming from 'her' you really can't expect everyone to
> >believe they are pristine, do you? They are what they are --
> >under-the-table acquisitions.
>
> Team Judyth has never contested that they are authentic. They have
> just bitched that people leaked them to me.
Why should they? The fact that they were purloined and then posted
speaks for itself.
>
> But of course, when somebody has e-mailitis the way Judyth does, the
> story is going to slip out.
>
Apparently everyone's private emails are your property? No wonder
people use aliases.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Martin Shackelford
been challenged, John. I did that when you originally put up the page, and
I did it again in the "86 Reasons."
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:477c6d47...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Martin Shackelford
Judyth,
they are e-mails from Judyth's attackers, reporting things they claim Judyth
told them.
In some instances, their claims have been exposed as false.
So, no, they were not "sent out by Judyth in the first place."
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:269704b5-7e4c-491f...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
steve
> On Jan 2, 11:07 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 Jan 2008 00:04:03 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Jan 1, 10:25=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> > >> On 1 Jan 2008 23:23:14 -0500, polly brown <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >> Are you saying that somebody forged all those e-mails, and just
> > >> >> *claimed* they were from Judyth?
>
> > >> >Well, when you start grabbing things under the table, you never know
> > >> >what you'll get.
>
> > >> But Team Judyth has never claimed the e-mails were faked or forged.
>
> > >> But don't give them ideas!
>
> > >When emails get passed around without Judyth's knowledge or permission and
> > >then are posted as coming from 'her' you really can't expect everyone to
> > >believe they are pristine, do you? They are what they are --
> > >under-the-table acquisitions.
>
> > Team Judyth has never contested that they are authentic. They have
> > just bitched that people leaked them to me.
>
> Why should they? The fact that they were purloined and then posted
> speaks for itself.
what speaks for itself is that they were real and sent out by team
judyth as part of her story. they were approved by judyth.
>
>
>
> > But of course, when somebody has e-mailitis the way Judyth does, the
> > story is going to slip out.
>
> Apparently everyone's private emails are your property? No wonder
> people use aliases.
>
> Pamela McElwain-Brownwww.in-broad-daylight.com- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
You are talking about McAdam's double standard? He would be screaming
bloody murder and suing everybody if WE posted HIS e-mails, wouldn't he?
> Pamela McElwain-Brown
> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
Dave Reitzes
> Steve, try actually LOOKING at McAdams' cites--they aren't e-mails from
> Judyth,
> they are e-mails from Judyth's attackers, reporting things they claim Judyth
> told them.
> In some instances, their claims have been exposed as false.
> So, no, they were not "sent out by Judyth in the first place."
>
> Martin
Yadda yadda yadda.
John's site quotes extensively from Judyth's own writings, as anyone
can see here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
I've got hundreds of pages of e-mails from the prolific Lady J, and I
quote from them quite a bit in the footnotes to my article:
http://www.jfk-online.com/judythstory.html
Of course Judyth's nonsense is indefensible, but kindly stop blaming
the messengers.
Dave
> "steve" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
steve
> Steve, try actually LOOKING at McAdams' cites--they aren't e-mails from
> Judyth,
> they are e-mails from Judyth's attackers, reporting things they claim Judyth
> told them.
> In some instances, their claims have been exposed as false.
> So, no, they were not "sent out by Judyth in the first place."
>
> Martin
are you saying that the emails are fake?
>
> "steve" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
> the time is more dishonest than anything McAdams did with them.- Hide quoted text -
polly brown
> On Jan 4, 6:11�pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Steve, try actually LOOKING at McAdams' cites--they aren't e-mails from
> > Judyth,
> > they are e-mails from Judyth's attackers, reporting things they claim Judyth
> > told them.
> > In some instances, their claims have been exposed as false.
> > So, no, they were not "sent out by Judyth in the first place."
>
> > Martin
>
> Yadda yadda yadda.
>
> John's site quotes extensively from Judyth's own writings, as anyone
> can see here:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>
> I've got hundreds of pages of e-mails from the prolific Lady J, and I
> quote from them quite a bit in the footnotes to my article:
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/judythstory.html
>
> Of course Judyth's nonsense is indefensible, but kindly stop blaming
The 'messengers'? Who stooped to a level of unprofessionalism never-
before seen in the research community to attempt to discredit a
witness?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broda-daylight.com
Dave Reitzes
Judyth's disciples have fertile imaginations, don't they? Odd
coincidence.
Meanwhile, Pamela still doesn't even bother trying to address the
evidence:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
http://www.jfk-online.com/judythstory.html
Seems pretty obvious she's incapable of doing so.
Dave
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:959159e1-d522-4b02...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...