More hate mail from Judyth and Howard
Altasrecrd
Howard Rogers had the balls recently to email me and bitch
because I dared to publically state that I don't believe Judyth's story.
This from the man who once described Judyth to me as having "Al Gore
tendencies" during the election campaign that tried to paint Gore as a fibber.
These people can all kiss my ass. I did my job for them. I went to the
archives to find ANY evidence that Judyth's story was true. I found none. I
spent 3 WEEKS that summer there, at my own expense. The experience was both
wonderful and depressing. It was great to learn so much about the
assassination. It was depressing to think that an intelligent person thought
she could lie to me and get away with it.
Judyth may indeed have worked at Reily, worked with cancer mice, etc. But
whatever part of her story that might be true has been forever shown worthless
because of her fabrications. If she ever was a witness to anything, it is she
and she alone that ruined her own worthiness by lying.
She lied about the Covington call. That call was eventually traced back to an
area where some other Quaker friends of the Paines lived,
people that had met the Oswalds in Louisiana.
There's more, but why should I bother?
Once again, the question that crew refuses to answer:
If this is news, why isn't it out yet?
Their usual comeback is that they are trying to protect themselves from coming
criticism.
Is that lame or what? IF THE STORY IS TRUE, CRITICISM DOESN"T MATTER.
The fact is they're trying to massage their story to the evidence that is out
there.
This is a case of people looking for money. Disgusting.
swine who turn and rend....when thrown pearls.....
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:58:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Judyth
To: Atlasrecrd
CC: Howpl, msh...@concentric.net,
Dear Matt:
If i am so good at research, why did i beg you on hands and knees to get a copy
of Reily stuff?
i wanted the stuff for visual evidence of what I have plenty of proof of.
I repeat: I believe there is a notation in my handwriting on one of the
timecards. Why wouldn't i want the card, since i have handwriting of mine from
that period that can be matched with it? This would be an easy way to prove i
handled Lee's cards, as i have claimed. I see nothing reprehensible in
obtaining these cards.
I do believe it is reprehensible that you call me a fraud for not following
YOUR time schedule. I wrote emails that effectively have divided the wheat
from the chaff. Those who cared enough to get clarification got it. they
earned it. In my emails i made some roughed-out statements because i could not
quote evidence. i have learned that it is better to say "I met Lee April 26"
and then show records proving he was in new Orleans by then. One person got on
my case that he wasn;t in town then, and i could not defend myself. later the
person looked up the matter and apologized. That is when i realized it is
important to have back-up to my statements, and to get more specific, as i
wrote a lot of generalizations instead of specifics.
I have learned that this evidence supports myn experience. I cannot manufacture
experience to fit evidence, Matt. My experience is documented in newspaper
articles, in letters, in records I own. I have collected evidence since then
that prove how my material is important. I have done this to defend myself and
to make it clear exactly where i fit into the big picture.
David Lifton calls this insering myself. That is ridiculous. Finding a picture
of me, say, in a high school reunion is not 'inserting' myself into the
reunion. it proves i was there. i have a picture of an anti-Castroite, the son
of Castro's Finance Minister, in my swmming pool. I have obtained evidence that
he attended my school, and a published picture to prove it's the same person in
my swimming pool. this is not inserting myself, this is providing support for
what happened.
I asked you for the reily records because i do not know how to get them and you
have them, and I have proof i worked at reily, and claim i handled the cards. I
believe there is a notation on one of the cards that i made, possibly in red
ink. It has been so many years since i have seen these time cards, and you have
them, and refused to send them. Some help YOU are!
All you have done so far is to be a big pain the in the rear. Thanks for
nothing.
You could have asked for a set of evidence. You never did. But you wanted all
those people out there to hear about me and published an inaccurate and very
abbreviated account of what I was about to an assortment of people, including
people who from that time have been stalking me on the internet and have
published my picture and workplace address, so that i am pestered all the time
by weirdos.
You did that, but you wuldn;t send the timecards.
then you call me a fraud.
You wanted me to place pearls before swine ---for them to trample on. And tyou
have now added more disinformation, for I was sent to the Archives BY CBS, at
my request, as i hoped to find some reily files, especially the credit report.
And i could not find any reily stuff because apparently YOU had requested all
those boxes and files, or somebody else did, that day, so there wasn't anything
there i could spot--except i spotted david lewis' handwriting and got that. I
spotted that handwriting because i had known David and read plenty of his
spastic writing all those years before.
.. So I spent five and a half hours at the Archives, my first and only time
there. And you said you'd send me the materials. you didn'[t. instead, you
criticize me for asking for these materials from you. in public, as if it's a
sin.
I do not want them to make up stuff about myself, you ninny. i want them to
prove what i have already previously written. AND IF I KNEW HOW TO GET THEM I
WOULD NOT HAVE ASKED YOU! OR BEGGED YOU FOR THEM. SO MUCH FOR MY WONDERFUL
ABILITIES TO INSERT MYSELF INTO THE RECORD. You offered to help me or I
wouldn't have even done that.
THEY ARE PROOF OF WHAT I HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN--IN THIS CASE, THAT I HANDLED
LEE'S TIMECARDS.
I valued you as a man of integrity. But your jumping to conclusions about me --
and shaming me for asking you to help me-- is now on the record.
You don't know me.
Now you never will.
Judyth
Include
original text
in Reply.
Reply
Reply All
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forward
Address Book
3 of 3
Download AOL 6.0
AOL Pricing Plans
AOL Access Numbers
AOL Affiliate Network
About AOL
About AOL Anywhere
Feedback
Careers@AOL
Link to Us
Advertise with Us
AOL Anywhere Help
AOL Anywhere
Search
Web Channels
Site Index
Copyright © 2000 America Online, Inc.
All rights reserved. Legal Notices
Privacy Policy
Try AOL 6.0
Karl Vissers
why not post a copy of them for the NG. I would like to see them myself. How
about it my friend? What proof do you have of anything. So far all I've seen
from you is just your personal opinion of what is or isn't true. You say that
Judyth is a fraud, OK show me your proff that she's what you say she is.
viking8350
viking8350
=keith=
duqu...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com says...
> In article <20010620210345...@ng-ma1.aol.com>,
> vikin...@aol.com says...
> ATLASrecrd. If you look down to the letter you will see that it is
> addressed correctly to Matt at atlasrecrd. This guy's been playing this
> game for awhile now.
>
> gene
>
Ya metinks so. How did Howard Rogers get in here?
=keith=
--
"An average citizen could discern, when the dust of argument
died away, where the truth lay. But there was still the danger
that the citizen could be misled by the luster of
intellectual and social prominence."
Altasrecrd
>Matt is confusing her speculation about the Covington call with her
>original account,
You are in serious denial.
Martin, are you denying that Judyth told us all she called Oswald using an
operator in Covington, and that she described an elaborate system to contact
Oswald with these calls?
YES OR NO, MARTIN?
JLeyden900
>From: altas...@aol.com (Altasrecrd)
>Date: Thu, Jun 21, 2001 06:57 EDT
>Message-id: <20010621065707...@ng-fk1.aol.com>
Matt, you ought to know by now that you don't get a straightforward, honest
"yes" or "no" from Martin. He's not a stand-up kinda guy. What you get
instead is the Shackleford Shuffle and snide insults.
JGL
Simon Moon
from the ether:
>
> Howard Rogers had the balls recently to email me and bitch
>because I dared to publically state that I don't believe Judyth's story.
I think you mean Howard Platzman, don't you?
Yours in Heresy,
Simon the Heretic
Robert Harris
says...
Martin,
Several years ago, Judyth and I spoke for several hours on the phone,
during which time I asked her repeatedly to try to come up with people
who could corroborate her supposed affair with Oswald.
She claimed that she and Lee went out with another young couple several
times and that the girl was a high school friend of hers, whose wedding
announcement appeared in the newspaper that year.
But she could not remember these people's names. If this girl's wedding
announcement did appear, it shouldn't be that hard to look it up. Why
can't Judyth tell us who these people are?
She also claimed that people at Alba's garage saw her and Lee being
cuddly. Can you find anyone there who will corroborate that? Alba
certainly won't.
She also told me that she spoke with Lee prior to the assassination and
that he knew very well that he was going to be used as a patsy. Is that
what she told you?
I think Judyth lost me as a supporter when she told me that someone stole
the hard drive out of her computer and then went on to tell a rather
sinister tale about an airline flight she had recently taken. She said
the plane had to land before reaching its destination (St. Louis as I
recall) because one of the other passengers had a heart attack.
A suspicious looking character across the aisle from her, leaned over and
warned her "If we can do that to him, think what we could do to you.".
My conclusion was that either Judyth suffers a rather severe paranoia, or
she thought that I did.
Robert Harris
> <HTML>
> Judyth reported what she remembered.
> <BR>She also, later, speculated about some things.
> <BR>Matt is confusing her speculation about the Covington call with her
> original account, which he has either never read or didn't understand.
> <BR>Having focused on that single, very shaky point, he goes with a throw-away
> line, "There's more, but why should I bother?"
> <BR>Probably true, if the "more" is as insubstantial as what he posted.
> <BR>Why bother?
> <BR>He posts one attack, then before anyone has a chance to respond to
> it, he posts another, immediately claiming "that crew refuses to answer"
> a question in the first post. As anyone who has been to that thread recently
> knows, the question was answered.
> <BR>No one has said the delay was "to protect themselves from coming criticism."
> Matt has again misinterpreted what little he knows.
> <BR>No one is "trying to massage their story to the evidence"--nothing
> in Judyth's original account has changed at all, as Joe Riehl (the first
> to read it) knows.
> <BR>Howard Platzman and I also read her original account before ever discussing
> any other evidence with her.
> <BR>There has been no change whatsoever in the facts of her original account.
> <BR>Matt says "This is a case of people looking for money. Disgusting."
> <BR>Apparently, he joins the Lone Nutters who seem to feel anyone researching
> this case is required to take a vow of poverty. What bullshit!!
> <BR>That said, money has never played a significant role in Judyth's effort
> to get her account out.
> <BR>She received a large money offer from the National Enquirer and turned
> it down.
> <BR>She offered the story instead to "60 Minutes," which doesn't pay for
> stories.
> <BR>There was never a sense that her account would be such a hot seller
> that it would even guarantee expenses related to getting it out.
> <BR>Money hasn't been a serious issue. Ever.
> <BR>This claim, more than any other, causes me to question Matt's motives.
> <BR>He appears to be angry, and seems not to give a damn whether the elements
> of his attack are valid or not, as long as they advance his vituperative
> cause.
>
> <P>Martin</HTML>
>
>
John McAdams
: In article <3B319889...@concentric.net>, msh...@concentric.net
: says...
: Martin,
Good post, Bob!
(I don't often say that to you, do I? :-).
It's important that everyone who has had contact with her, or has in their
possession an e-mail from her, go public with what she said, or at least
keep a careful record.
When the "Judyth" story goes public, it is most certainly going to be a
highly sanitized version. Embarrassing faux pas like the "fine hotel in
Cancun" will be removed.
I'm not sure that even *that* will make the story plausible.
.John
John McAdams
: >Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
: YES OR NO, MARTIN?
I really think Martin ought to give you a straightforward answer.
But the odds of that are slight. He will simply accuse you of taking
something out of context.
.John
John McAdams
: Howard Rogers had the balls recently to email me and bitch
: because I dared to publically state that I don't believe Judyth's story.
I'm sure you mean Howard Platzman.
: This from the man who once described Judyth to me as having "Al Gore
: tendencies" during the election campaign that tried to paint Gore as a fibber.
: These people can all kiss my ass. I did my job for them. I went to the
: archives to find ANY evidence that Judyth's story was true. I found none. I
: spent 3 WEEKS that summer there, at my own expense. The experience was both
: wonderful and depressing. It was great to learn so much about the
: assassination. It was depressing to think that an intelligent person thought
: she could lie to me and get away with it.
: Judyth may indeed have worked at Reily, worked with cancer mice, etc. But
: whatever part of her story that might be true has been forever shown worthless
: because of her fabrications. If she ever was a witness to anything, it is she
: and she alone that ruined her own worthiness by lying.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find she worked a Reily, but the "mice"
stuff seems to have been picked up from the book MARY, FERRIE, AND THE
MONKEY VIRUS. She appears to have simply incorporated parts of the silly
"David Ferrie was a cancer researcher" nonsense into her tale.
BTW, is there any actual evidence she worked at Reily?
: She lied about the Covington call. That call was eventually traced back to an
: area where some other Quaker friends of the Paines lived,
: people that had met the Oswalds in Louisiana.
Right. As Lifton said, she is "inserting herself" into real pieces of the
historical record.
She somehow has learned enough of it to find pieces here and there she can
weave into her story, but she doesn't know enough to avoid the silly
factoids.
: There's more, but why should I bother?
: Once again, the question that crew refuses to answer:
: If this is news, why isn't it out yet?
: Their usual comeback is that they are trying to protect themselves from
: coming
: criticism.
: Is that lame or what? IF THE STORY IS TRUE, CRITICISM DOESN"T MATTER.
: The fact is they're trying to massage their story to the evidence
: that is out
: there.
Yes, although they don't have to be engaged in *conscious* fraud. Somehow
under her spell, they can shrug off the most absurd inconsistencies, and
rationalize about anything she says.
But, to *start* with, they have to be willing to accept siliness like the
"David Ferrie and Mary Sherman" business.
.John
JLeyden900
>Date: Thu, Jun 21, 2001 18:38 EDT
>Message-id: <9gtt0h$a4a$1...@nnrp1.phx.gblx.net>
I agree, John. I've long felt that if everyone here told what they knew about
Judyth, we could blow this story right out of the water and give it a merciful
burial. Maybe we could offer a prize for the best story... altho Bob's is
going to be hard to beat. The sinister guy on the airplane did it for me.
JGL
Isabelkirk
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>. It is truly funny that you ignore posts by people who have actually
>examined Judyth's evidence, while choosing as your "experts" people like
>..... Harris who.... had a single phone conversation with her, and
>declined to look at the evidence. I don't have a problem with their skepticism,
>but I do have a problem with the assumptions they make prematurely without
>seeing any of the evidence.
What's your evidence that Mr. Harris had only one phone call with her?
What's your evidence that he "declined to look at the evidence"?
What "evidence" was offered to him?
You've made a real fetish of folks like Harris and Allison (to name
just two recent ones) "refusing or declining" to look at evidence, but
the only person who seems to be "refusing or declining" is you. You
have produced nothing to show that they are wrong.
I have no problem with folks declining to produce evidence while they
are working on an article, book, whatever--or declining to produce
material given in confidence by someone else.
I DO have a problem with someone who, in the face of INDEPENDENT
evidence that his subject is a liar or a wacko (or both), asserts that
others who have disproven or seriously weakened her claims have
"declined" or "refused" to look at evidence when NONE was forthcoming.
You (and she) have had ample time to put up or shut up. It is now
obvious that SHE is still hoping to make money on her hoax. It's not
going to happen.
Three people whom no one has ANY reason to doubt, nor who have any axe
to grind (as opposed to McAss, and the bodysnatcher)--Allison, Hoch,
and now Harris--have produced ample evidence to discredit this woman.
It is you who are on that limb. And it is on the ground. I hope your
own limbs are intact. If so, you should count your blessings, and get
out. The only folks who are eating their words on this one are the
supporters of "judyth".
And here's a little post-script for you. It is NOT impressive that
"someone" at Sixty Minutes believes her story. Journalists
(especially television journalists, who are generally weaker on hard
facts) are frequently fooled by clever liars, especially in this case,
until they learn the phenomenon of professional JFK Assassination
hoaxters. This mystery has more hoaxs attached to it (assisted by
pros, who have been in the business for YEARS) than a dog has fleas.
><P>At some point, you will regret having gone so far out onto a limb. That
>cracking sound will the the limb being cut off behind you.
>
><P>Martin</HTML>
>
>
A. Mieskolainen
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:3B3282A3...@concentric.net...I've not only kept a careful record, I've kept a complete record. After someone examined it for CBS, he became (and remains) a strong believer in Judyth's account.
You guys still rely on fragments, and think you know what you're talking about, a very dangerous assumption.Martin
JLeyden900
>Date: Fri, Jun 22, 2001 10:57 EDT
>Message-id: <9gvf52$1gu$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0158_01C0FAF8.C7E3C380
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>Please provide the name of this CBS person.
Sorry, Martin doesn't do requests.
JGL
AnthonyMarsh
Did Martin say it was a CBS person? No. Just that someone examined it
FOR CBS. CBS uses consultants for a lot of these stories.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
A. Mieskolainen
AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:3B339EE3...@quik.com...
Altasrecrd
>At this point, that would be inappropriate, as the person is still involved
>in the process and would prefer not to be named. .
At this point, god bless him, this (non-CBS) person is still looking for
answers in this case because his benefactor has assurred him there is fire when
it comes to the JFK conspiracy smoke.
Judyth lied to you Martin. If this sham causes *
and * to abandon their attempt at getting at the truth, are you willing to go
to your grave as one of reasons why? Deal with that.
Altasrecrd
>If you think Matt Allison has "no axe to grind," you are unaware of
>quite a bit, even of quite a bit that he has posted in the past on this
>newsgroup.
Fuck you, you asshole.
In case you didn't know it Martin, I have a life outside this assassination
thing.
The fact that you and Howard have been reduced to casting aspersions upon me,
a person you do not know and have never met, says everything about what a
pitiful chump you are.
I have quite a life Martin, if you've ever bothered to RESEARCH who I am. My
travails into this subject have been completely unselfish; looking only for the
truth. Unlike Howard and Judyth, my future income is not dependent on how this
all plays out.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Atlasrecrd
> It is truly funny that you ignore posts by people who have actually
>examined Judyth's evidence,
Martin:
Done handwriting analysis yet?
Noticed her name isn't on the check stubs yet?
You and I both have emails and an outline from Judyth. Are you going to deny
that she said she used an operator in Covington to reach Oswald? Yes or No?
Do I need to post it?
She got this from Weberman's site.
As long as I know this person lied, I am not going to allow her to make a
mockery of JFK research. Get used to it.
Isabelkirk
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
><P>I'm not sure what you think is "independent evidence" that Judyth is
>"a liar or a wacko." .
Check out Robert Harris's post, for only the most RECENT examples.
> Robert Harris was offered a chance to review the evidence; he declined.
> Matt Allison was offered a chance to review the evidence; he glanced briefly
> at some of it and didn't pursue it further. But all seem to feel qualified to
> denounce Judyth as a fraud.
Harris's account is devastating. Read it. The woman is nuts, not to
mention a liar. No one confronted with that kind of insanity would
*ask* for the "evidence". But I'll wait to hear from HIM that it was
*offered*. (I doubt it.)
><P>I'm also tired of the repetitive bullshit about how Judyth must be in
>it for the money. Why would she turn down substantial sums from tabloids,
>and offer the story free to "60 Minutes" if she was only in it for the
>money?
A story on "60 Minutes" would pretty much guarantee a
best-seller---and much more money than she was offered by a tabloid.
(Didn't I read that St. Martins was going to publish the book--what
was the price?--provided she got on Sixty Minutes?) Too bad she went
for broke. Maybe she can still go for the Enquirer, though.
>
><P>It's true that Paul Hoch, who saw a little of the evidence, is also
>in the skeptic camp. When he eventually sees all of it, I think he'll change
>his mind. I have a lot of respect for Paul.
I don't think he (or anyone else) is going to change his mind. I
can't remember Hoch posting anything to the internet before he sent
his Judyth stuff to McAss. Sounds like his mind is rather inflexibly
MADE UP. If you respect him, that ought to be a hint to you.
>
><P>If you think Matt Allison has "no axe to grind," you are unaware of
>quite a bit, even of quite a bit that he has posted in the past on this
>newsgroup.
I've thought his posts re "Judyth" were pretty restrained. He even
posted a long apologia from her "daughter" didn't he?
><P>I've seen the evidence, I've checked Judyth out, I've done some on-scene
>research in New Orleans, I've consulted with researchers who have done
>extensive study of the documentation on Oswald, I've talked with a witness
>who knew both Judyth and Lee in New Orleans, and I don't have any problem
>standing by Judyth at this point.
Marina Oswald Porter is conspicuous by her absence from your list.
You know very well "Judyth" will not stand up to her--and she's the
recognized living "expert" on Oswald, like it or not.
Nor will "Judyth" stand up to the "documentation" re Oswald.
>
><P>Those who want to continue attacking her, of course, will do so. It
>makes no real difference. The facts will all come out.
The facts re "Judyth" and Oswald HAVE all come out.
There ARE none.
A. Mieskolainen
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:3B3413ED...@concentric.net...
At this point, that would be inappropriate, as the person is still involved in the process and would prefer not to be named. .
Martin
A. Mieskolainen wrote:
Please provide the name of this CBS person.
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:3B3282A3...@concentric.net...I've not only kept a careful record, I've kept a complete record. After someone examined it for CBS, he became (and remains) a strong believer in Judyth's account.
AnthonyMarsh
Is this a guessing game? OK, I guess Don Hewitt.
Robert Harris
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> <HTML>
> Ask Robert, Isabel.
> <BR>I'm sure he's honest enough to tell you he didn't look at the evidence,
> though Judyth offered him the opportunity to see the same evidence others
> of us have seen.
That is absolute bullshit!
Guess I need to pay more attention to what is being said in this thread.
Not only did I *NEVER* refuse to look at evidence, I practically begged
the woman to send me anything and everything she had.
I asked her practically ad nausem to present evidence or corroborations of
any kind.
If Judyth has told you that I refused to examine evidence, then in my
mind, any and all remaining shreds of doubt about her, are gone. She is
simply a liar.
Robert Harris
>
> <P>You accuse me of "refusing or declining," but the material is not mine
> to publish. When someone asks me to help, I don't turn around and publish
> what they've shared on the Internet without their permission. It's an ethical
> issue.
>
> <P>I'm not sure what you think is "independent evidence" that Judyth is
> "a liar or a wacko." I've seen independent evidence that she's exactly
> what she says she is.
>
> <P>No evidence was forthcoming? Nonsense. David Lifton was offered a chance
> to review the evidence; he declined. Robert Harris was offered a chance
> to review the evidence; he declined. Matt Allison was offered a chance
> to review the evidence; he glanced briefly at some of it and didn't pursue
> it further. But all three seem to feel qualified to denounce Judyth as
> a fraud.
>
> <P>At this point, there are quite a number of people who HAVE seen the
> evidence. Only Debra Conway, who saw most of the early evidence, has sided
> with Lifton, a longtime friend. The others who have seen it have found
> her very credible. Some have even provided additional supporting evidence.
>
> <P>I'm very tired of people saying we've had "ample time" to get the story
> out. What do you think we've been attempting to do for the past two years?
> We've talked with two agents, both of whom seemed sure they could get the
> book published; various publishers, four of whose representatives expressed
> the desire to publish the book, and were then overruled by higher-ups in
> their companies; TV people who wanted to do the story, but encountered
> problems trying to get it on the air (and pro-Warren Commission "experts"
> foisted on them to "evaluate" Judyth's credibility--one of whom made it
> clear that he considered her a fantasist BECAUSE she wasn't presenting
> the Warren Commission viewpoint); and tabloids that offered large amounts
> of money for the story, but wanted to do it in a sensationalist or exploitive
> way. Why don't all of you who talk of "ample time" try to get a JFK book
> published, and see how quickly the process goes for you?
>
> <P>I'm also tired of the repetitive bullshit about how Judyth must be in
> it for the money. Why would she turn down substantial sums from tabloids,
> and offer the story free to "60 Minutes" if she was only in it for the
> money? Try using logic for a change.
>
> <P>It's true that Paul Hoch, who saw a little of the evidence, is also
> in the skeptic camp. When he eventually sees all of it, I think he'll change
> his mind. I have a lot of respect for Paul.
>
> <P>If you think Matt Allison has "no axe to grind," you are unaware of
> quite a bit, even of quite a bit that he has posted in the past on this
> newsgroup.
>
> <P>None of Judyth's supporters are eating their words. And I think you'll
> find that, in the long run, none of us will need to do so.
>
> <P>As for "60 Minutes," you'll notice I haven't cited them as being the
> best arbiters of truth. I think they run a lot of "softball" stories, like
> the rest of the press, often-times. They could do much better, on this
> case and many other subjects. It makes you wonder, when they wanted to
> do Judyth's story and didn't, now many other stories they "believe in"
> and "want to do" are also never seeing airtime. Not to single them
> out. Any review of a few issues of Extra! provides numerous examples from
> all of the news media.
>
> <P>I've seen the evidence, I've checked Judyth out, I've done some on-scene
> research in New Orleans, I've consulted with researchers who have done
> extensive study of the documentation on Oswald, I've talked with a witness
> who knew both Judyth and Lee in New Orleans, and I don't have any problem
> standing by Judyth at this point.
>
> <P>Those who want to continue attacking her, of course, will do so. It
> makes no real difference. The facts will all come out. I'm not out on a
> limb--I'm not even in the tree. I'm on the ground having a picnic and
chuckling
> at some of the posts on this subject.
>
> <P>Martin
> <BR> </HTML>
Isabelkirk
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
><HTML>
>Robert,
>
><P> As she was giving copies of the
>evidence to pretty much everyone who asked at that point, I assumed you
>had declined it.
And just what point was that? From what he has posted, I suspect that
Ms. Vary (or whatever her current name is) was in touch with Mr.
Harris before she was in touch with you. In fact, I think it was from
talking with Mr. Harris that she decided she better come up with
something, (....anything) and did. It is my understanding that she
was in touch with at least two others I know of (who have NOT been
heard from here) earlier than the timeframe you have mentioned.
By the way. Mr. Allison has now weighed in. I haven't seen anything
from Mr. Riehl (sp?) recently. What is his current position on Ms.
Vary?
>
><P>Martin
><BR>
><BR>
>
><P>Robert Harris wrote:
><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>In article <3B34282F...@concentric.net>,
>Martin Shackelford
><BR><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
><P>> <HTML>
><BR>> Ask Robert, Isabel.
><BR>> <BR>I'm sure he's honest enough to tell you he didn't look at
>the evidence,
><BR>> though Judyth offered him the opportunity to see the same evidence
>others
><BR>> of us have seen.
>
><P>That is absolute bullshit!
>
><P>Guess I need to pay more attention to what is being said in this thread.
>
><P>Not only did I *NEVER* refuse to look at evidence, I practically begged
><BR>the woman to send me anything and everything she had.
>
><P>I asked her practically ad nausem to present evidence or corroborations
>of
><BR>any kind.
>
><P>If Judyth has told you that I refused to examine evidence, then in my
><BR>mind, any and all remaining shreds of doubt about her, are gone. She
>is
><BR>simply a liar.
>
><P>Robert Harris
>
><P>>
><BR>> <P>You accuse me of "refusing or declining," but the material
>is not mine
><BR>> to publish. When someone asks me to help, I don't turn around and
>publish
><BR>> what they've shared on the Internet without their permission. It's
>an ethical
><BR>> issue.
><BR>>
><BR>> <P>I'm not sure what you think is "independent evidence" that
>Judyth is
><BR>> "a liar or a wacko." I've seen independent evidence that she's exactly
><BR>> what she says she is.
><BR>>
><BR>> <P>No evidence was forthcoming? Nonsense. David Lifton was offered
>a chance
><BR>> to review the evidence; he declined. Robert Harris was offered a
>chance
><BR>> to review the evidence; he declined. Matt Allison was offered a chance
><BR>> to review the evidence; he glanced briefly at some of it and didn't
>pursue
><BR>> it further. But all three seem to feel qualified to denounce Judyth
>as
><BR>> a fraud.
><BR>>
><BR>> <P>At this point, there are quite a number of people who HAVE
>seen the
><BR>> evidence. Only Debra Conway, who saw most of the early evidence,
>has sided
><BR>> with Lifton, a longtime friend. The others who have seen it have
>found
><BR>> her very credible. Some have even provided additional supporting
>evidence.
><BR>>
><BR>> <P>I'm very tired of people saying we've had "ample time" to get
>the story
><BR>> out. What do you think we've been attempting to do for the past two
>years?
><BR>> We've talked with two agents, both of whom seemed sure they could
>get the
><BR>> book published; various publishers, four of whose representatives
>expressed
><BR>> the desire to publish the book, and were then overruled by higher-ups
>in
><BR>> their companies; TV people who wanted to do the story, but encountered
><BR>> problems trying to get it on the air (and pro-Warren Commission "experts"
><BR>> foisted on them to "evaluate" Judyth's credibility--one of whom made
>it
><BR>> clear that he considered her a fantasist BECAUSE she wasn't presenting
><BR>> the Warren Commission viewpoint); and tabloids that offered large
>amounts
><BR>> of money for the story, but wanted to do it in a sensationalist or
>exploitive
><BR>> way. Why don't all of you who talk of "ample time" try to get a JFK
>book
><BR>> published, and see how quickly the process goes for you?
><BR>>
><BR>> <P>I'm also tired of the repetitive bullshit about how Judyth
>must be in
><BR>> it for the money. Why would she turn down substantial sums from tabloids,
><BR>> and offer the story free to "60 Minutes" if she was only in it for
>the
><BR>> money? Try using logic for a change.
><BR>>
><BR>> <P>It's true that Paul Hoch, who saw a little of the evidence,
>is also
><BR>> in the skeptic camp. When he eventually sees all of it, I think he'll
>change
><BR>> his mind. I have a lot of respect for Paul.
><BR>>
><BR>> <P>If you think Matt Allison has "no axe to grind," you are unaware
>of
><BR>> quite a bit, even of quite a bit that he has posted in the past on
>this
><BR>> newsgroup.
><BR>>
><BR>> <P>None of Judyth's supporters are eating their words. And I think
>you'll
><BR>> find that, in the long run, none of us will need to do so.
><BR>>
><BR>> <P>As for "60 Minutes," you'll notice I haven't cited them as
>being the
><BR>> best arbiters of truth. I think they run a lot of "softball" stories,
>like
><BR>> the rest of the press, often-times. They could do much better, on
>this
><BR>> case and many other subjects. It makes you wonder, when they wanted
>to
><BR>> do Judyth's story and didn't, now many other stories they "believe
>in"
><BR>> and&nbsp; "want to do" are also never seeing airtime. Not to
>single them
><BR>> out. Any review of a few issues of Extra! provides numerous examples
>from
><BR>> all of the news media.
><BR>>
><BR>> <P>I've seen the evidence, I've checked Judyth out, I've done
>some on-scene
><BR>> research in New Orleans, I've consulted with researchers who have
>done
><BR>> extensive study of the documentation on Oswald, I've talked with
>a witness
><BR>> who knew both Judyth and Lee in New Orleans, and I don't have any
>problem
><BR>> standing by Judyth at this point.
><BR>>
><BR>> <P>Those who want to continue attacking her, of course, will do
>so. It
><BR>> makes no real difference. The facts will all come out. I'm not out
>on a
><BR>> limb--I'm not even in the tree. I'm on the ground having a picnic
>and
><BR>chuckling
><BR>> at some of the posts on this subject.
><BR>>
><BR>> <P>Martin
><BR>> <BR>&nbsp;</HTML></BLOCKQUOTE>
> </HTML>
>
Robert Harris
(Isabelkirk) wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2001 08:09:51 GMT, Martin Shackelford
> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> ><HTML>
> >Robert,
> >
> ><P> As she was giving copies of the
> >evidence to pretty much everyone who asked at that point, I assumed you
> >had declined it.
>
> And just what point was that? From what he has posted, I suspect that
> Ms. Vary (or whatever her current name is) was in touch with Mr.
> Harris before she was in touch with you. In fact, I think it was from
> talking with Mr. Harris that she decided she better come up with
> something, (....anything) and did. It is my understanding that she
> was in touch with at least two others I know of (who have NOT been
> heard from here) earlier than the timeframe you have mentioned.
Judyth and I had exchanged a number of emails during the months following
our phone conversation. In my earliest emails, I told her that I could not
accept her story unless she could provide strong corroboration.
Later, I received a rather angry email from her, following a posting I
made in which I expressed skepticism.
It was at that point that she accused me of refusing to look at evidence.
Of course, I replied that demanding evidence was pretty much, all I ever
talked about with her, and that her accusation was ridiculous. I have
never, ever refused to look at anything she offered.
I am a bit surprised that Martin based his identical accusation on his own
presumptions, since I have to seriously doubt that Judyth did not repeat
her claims about me, to him and others:-)
BTW, Martin if you are listening, I will *STILL* be happy to look at
anything you have supporting Judyth's claims. Just let me know and I will
give you a mailing address.
Robert Harris
Isabelkirk
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:07:31 -0600, reha...@spinn.net (Robert Harris)
wrote: