After reading Judyth's book LHO, I am beginning to form some impressions about perhaps its most central issue -- that of documentation.
What kinds of documentation should we expect? And what kinds of documentation are available to us?
First, it seems that there are three main concepts at work:
1 -- LHO and Judyth knowing of each other because they both worked at Reily at the same time
2 -- LHO and Judyth having a personal relationship
3 -- LHO and Judyth being involved in a kill-Castro plot involving Dr Sherman, David Ferrie, Dr Oschner, Bannister, et al.
Basically, it seem that there are two levels of documentation: -- direct/objective documentation that can be verified; or inderect/subjective documentation that may contribute to information known by or about the subjects involved at that time in history.
Judyth does have documentation that she and LHO worked at Reily at the same time. I am willing to extend the privilege offered by that documentation to anyone else she says she knew or met at Reily, such as Monaghan. That seems only logical.
Judyth does not seem to have in her book objective verification of her having a personal relationship with LHO. The handwriting analysis, which has come later, may be considered documentation at that level. However, we have not as yet seen the documents involved in this blind test nor documentation of the results, which should be forthcoming.
In terms of the other relationships Judyth describes as part of the kill-Castro plot, there does not seem to be any objective documentation connecting her to the others she claims are involved. In an ideal world, especially when the stakes are as high as they are in Judyth's case, there should be objective documentation connecting Judyth to each person she says she and LHO were involved with. Having LHO open the door for her into this secret world may be enough to make a great-reading book, but not enough to demonstrate to us that such a plot existed and that she and LHO were at the center of it.
At the same time, we have to acknowledge that we are asking for documentation of secret plots and hidden agendas for which there was not supposed to be any documentation.
Trusting Judyth and Martin's statements that (most of) the documentation is in the book, we must assume that the remainder of any documentation is not going to be forthcoming from Judyth or Martin. It is perhaps the task, if we so desire, of the research community to follow up on some of the numerous statements Judyth has made to see where witnesses may still be living who can corroborate or deny her statements.
In other words, don't waste your time and concentrate on far, far better areas of research: people and events that really happened and can be verified. vince palamara Judyth reminds me of the whole Lifton and Greer-shot-JFK theories: they seem to captivate and tantalize, in and of themselves, regardless of the lack of proof.
pamel...@mindspring.com wrote: > After reading Judyth's book LHO, I am beginning to form some > impressions about perhaps its most central issue -- that of > documentation.
> What kinds of documentation should we expect? And what kinds of > documentation are available to us?
> First, it seems that there are three main concepts at work:
> 1 -- LHO and Judyth knowing of each other because they both worked at > Reily at the same time
> 2 -- LHO and Judyth having a personal relationship
> 3 -- LHO and Judyth being involved in a kill-Castro plot involving Dr > Sherman, David Ferrie, Dr Oschner, Bannister, et al.
> Basically, it seem that there are two levels of documentation: -- > direct/objective documentation that can be verified; or > inderect/subjective documentation that may contribute to information > known by or about the subjects involved at that time in history.
> Judyth does have documentation that she and LHO worked at Reily at the > same time. I am willing to extend the privilege offered by that > documentation to anyone else she says she knew or met at Reily, such > as Monaghan. That seems only logical.
> Judyth does not seem to have in her book objective verification of her > having a personal relationship with LHO. The handwriting analysis, > which has come later, may be considered documentation at that level. > However, we have not as yet seen the documents involved in this blind > test nor documentation of the results, which should be forthcoming.
> In terms of the other relationships Judyth describes as part of the > kill-Castro plot, there does not seem to be any objective > documentation connecting her to the others she claims are involved. In > an ideal world, especially when the stakes are as high as they are in > Judyth's case, there should be objective documentation connecting > Judyth to each person she says she and LHO were involved with. Having > LHO open the door for her into this secret world may be enough to make > a great-reading book, but not enough to demonstrate to us that such a > plot existed and that she and LHO were at the center of it.
> At the same time, we have to acknowledge that we are asking for > documentation of secret plots and hidden agendas for which there was > not supposed to be any documentation.
> Trusting Judyth and Martin's statements that (most of) the > documentation is in the book, we must assume that the remainder of any > documentation is not going to be forthcoming from Judyth or Martin. It > is perhaps the task, if we so desire, of the research community to > follow up on some of the numerous statements Judyth has made to see > where witnesses may still be living who can corroborate or deny her > statements.
With all due respect, Vince, you have already voiced your dismay over Judyth and her statements, so you are reading my post from your preconceived position. That's fine.
I happen to find Judyth's statements sufficiently interesting to want to follow up on some of them.
One example are her statements about LHO being involved with the SS in the selection of routes in Dallas. On the surface, this hardly sounds possible. Yet, in fact, there does not seem to have been much definition yet of the process specifically as it relates to people involved in Texas.
Does your SS expertise extend to the agents in Dallas/Ft. Worth at that time and the process involved?
<vincebet...@yahoo.com> wrote: >In other words, don't waste your time and concentrate on far, far >better areas of research: people and events that really happened and >can be verified. >vince palamara >Judyth reminds me of the whole Lifton and Greer-shot-JFK theories: they >seem to captivate and tantalize, in and of themselves, regardless of >the lack of proof.
>pamel...@mindspring.com wrote: >> After reading Judyth's book LHO, I am beginning to form some >> impressions about perhaps its most central issue -- that of >> documentation.
>> What kinds of documentation should we expect? And what kinds of >> documentation are available to us?
>> First, it seems that there are three main concepts at work:
>> 1 -- LHO and Judyth knowing of each other because they both worked at >> Reily at the same time
>> 2 -- LHO and Judyth having a personal relationship
>> 3 -- LHO and Judyth being involved in a kill-Castro plot involving Dr >> Sherman, David Ferrie, Dr Oschner, Bannister, et al.
>> Basically, it seem that there are two levels of documentation: -- >> direct/objective documentation that can be verified; or >> inderect/subjective documentation that may contribute to information >> known by or about the subjects involved at that time in history.
>> Judyth does have documentation that she and LHO worked at Reily at the >> same time. I am willing to extend the privilege offered by that >> documentation to anyone else she says she knew or met at Reily, such >> as Monaghan. That seems only logical.
>> Judyth does not seem to have in her book objective verification of her >> having a personal relationship with LHO. The handwriting analysis, >> which has come later, may be considered documentation at that level. >> However, we have not as yet seen the documents involved in this blind >> test nor documentation of the results, which should be forthcoming.
>> In terms of the other relationships Judyth describes as part of the >> kill-Castro plot, there does not seem to be any objective >> documentation connecting her to the others she claims are involved. In >> an ideal world, especially when the stakes are as high as they are in >> Judyth's case, there should be objective documentation connecting >> Judyth to each person she says she and LHO were involved with. Having >> LHO open the door for her into this secret world may be enough to make >> a great-reading book, but not enough to demonstrate to us that such a >> plot existed and that she and LHO were at the center of it.
>> At the same time, we have to acknowledge that we are asking for >> documentation of secret plots and hidden agendas for which there was >> not supposed to be any documentation.
>> Trusting Judyth and Martin's statements that (most of) the >> documentation is in the book, we must assume that the remainder of any >> documentation is not going to be forthcoming from Judyth or Martin. It >> is perhaps the task, if we so desire, of the research community to >> follow up on some of the numerous statements Judyth has made to see >> where witnesses may still be living who can corroborate or deny her >> statements.
I respect your opinion, Pamela:) Actually, despite my admited silliness, I respect Martin's, too...which is why I am flabbergasted by his backing of her story! In any event, "Yes" to the Dallas/ Ft. Worth Secret Service---what did you want to know (or did you want to correspond via e-mail)? :)
pamel...@mindspring.com wrote: > With all due respect, Vince, you have already voiced your dismay over > Judyth and her statements, so you are reading my post from your > preconceived position. That's fine.
> I happen to find Judyth's statements sufficiently interesting to want > to follow up on some of them.
> One example are her statements about LHO being involved with the SS in > the selection of routes in Dallas. On the surface, this hardly sounds > possible. Yet, in fact, there does not seem to have been much > definition yet of the process specifically as it relates to people > involved in Texas.
> Does your SS expertise extend to the agents in Dallas/Ft. Worth at > that time and the process involved?
> >In other words, don't waste your time and concentrate on far, far > >better areas of research: people and events that really happened and > >can be verified. > >vince palamara > >Judyth reminds me of the whole Lifton and Greer-shot-JFK theories: they > >seem to captivate and tantalize, in and of themselves, regardless of > >the lack of proof.
> >pamel...@mindspring.com wrote: > >> After reading Judyth's book LHO, I am beginning to form some > >> impressions about perhaps its most central issue -- that of > >> documentation.
> >> What kinds of documentation should we expect? And what kinds of > >> documentation are available to us?
> >> First, it seems that there are three main concepts at work:
> >> 1 -- LHO and Judyth knowing of each other because they both worked at > >> Reily at the same time
> >> 2 -- LHO and Judyth having a personal relationship
> >> 3 -- LHO and Judyth being involved in a kill-Castro plot involving Dr > >> Sherman, David Ferrie, Dr Oschner, Bannister, et al.
> >> Basically, it seem that there are two levels of documentation: -- > >> direct/objective documentation that can be verified; or > >> inderect/subjective documentation that may contribute to information > >> known by or about the subjects involved at that time in history.
> >> Judyth does have documentation that she and LHO worked at Reily at the > >> same time. I am willing to extend the privilege offered by that > >> documentation to anyone else she says she knew or met at Reily, such > >> as Monaghan. That seems only logical.
> >> Judyth does not seem to have in her book objective verification of her > >> having a personal relationship with LHO. The handwriting analysis, > >> which has come later, may be considered documentation at that level. > >> However, we have not as yet seen the documents involved in this blind > >> test nor documentation of the results, which should be forthcoming.
> >> In terms of the other relationships Judyth describes as part of the > >> kill-Castro plot, there does not seem to be any objective > >> documentation connecting her to the others she claims are involved. In > >> an ideal world, especially when the stakes are as high as they are in > >> Judyth's case, there should be objective documentation connecting > >> Judyth to each person she says she and LHO were involved with. Having > >> LHO open the door for her into this secret world may be enough to make > >> a great-reading book, but not enough to demonstrate to us that such a > >> plot existed and that she and LHO were at the center of it.
> >> At the same time, we have to acknowledge that we are asking for > >> documentation of secret plots and hidden agendas for which there was > >> not supposed to be any documentation.
> >> Trusting Judyth and Martin's statements that (most of) the > >> documentation is in the book, we must assume that the remainder of any > >> documentation is not going to be forthcoming from Judyth or Martin. It > >> is perhaps the task, if we so desire, of the research community to > >> follow up on some of the numerous statements Judyth has made to see > >> where witnesses may still be living who can corroborate or deny her > >> statements.
After I have had a chance to spend over a week reading Judyth's book, I am starting to ask why Martin, who has a history background, has chosen to back everything Judyth says without also requiring objective documentation at every turn. I realize that there is a theory in the research community that claims everything a witness says is 'right' (whether or not it actually is), but I had not thought anyone with history as a specialty would be a part of it.
I am interested in knowing who the SS agents were in Dallas/Ft. Worth who were involved in the planning of the Texas events, and at what point in time they became involved. Posting here is fine with me; I think there has been enough backchanneling. :-0
<vincebet...@yahoo.com> wrote: >I respect your opinion, Pamela:) Actually, despite my admited >silliness, I respect Martin's, too...which is why I am flabbergasted by >his backing of her story! In any event, "Yes" to the Dallas/ Ft. Worth >Secret Service---what did you want to know (or did you want to >correspond via e-mail)? :)
>vince palamara >pamel...@mindspring.com wrote: >> With all due respect, Vince, you have already voiced your dismay over >> Judyth and her statements, so you are reading my post from your >> preconceived position. That's fine.
>> I happen to find Judyth's statements sufficiently interesting to want >> to follow up on some of them.
>> One example are her statements about LHO being involved with the SS in >> the selection of routes in Dallas. On the surface, this hardly sounds >> possible. Yet, in fact, there does not seem to have been much >> definition yet of the process specifically as it relates to people >> involved in Texas.
>> Does your SS expertise extend to the agents in Dallas/Ft. Worth at >> that time and the process involved?
>> >In other words, don't waste your time and concentrate on far, far >> >better areas of research: people and events that really happened and >> >can be verified. >> >vince palamara >> >Judyth reminds me of the whole Lifton and Greer-shot-JFK theories: they >> >seem to captivate and tantalize, in and of themselves, regardless of >> >the lack of proof.
>> >pamel...@mindspring.com wrote: >> >> After reading Judyth's book LHO, I am beginning to form some >> >> impressions about perhaps its most central issue -- that of >> >> documentation.
>> >> What kinds of documentation should we expect? And what kinds of >> >> documentation are available to us?
>> >> First, it seems that there are three main concepts at work:
>> >> 1 -- LHO and Judyth knowing of each other because they both worked at >> >> Reily at the same time
>> >> 2 -- LHO and Judyth having a personal relationship
>> >> 3 -- LHO and Judyth being involved in a kill-Castro plot involving Dr >> >> Sherman, David Ferrie, Dr Oschner, Bannister, et al.
>> >> Basically, it seem that there are two levels of documentation: -- >> >> direct/objective documentation that can be verified; or >> >> inderect/subjective documentation that may contribute to information >> >> known by or about the subjects involved at that time in history.
>> >> Judyth does have documentation that she and LHO worked at Reily at the >> >> same time. I am willing to extend the privilege offered by that >> >> documentation to anyone else she says she knew or met at Reily, such >> >> as Monaghan. That seems only logical.
>> >> Judyth does not seem to have in her book objective verification of her >> >> having a personal relationship with LHO. The handwriting analysis, >> >> which has come later, may be considered documentation at that level. >> >> However, we have not as yet seen the documents involved in this blind >> >> test nor documentation of the results, which should be forthcoming.
>> >> In terms of the other relationships Judyth describes as part of the >> >> kill-Castro plot, there does not seem to be any objective >> >> documentation connecting her to the others she claims are involved. In >> >> an ideal world, especially when the stakes are as high as they are in >> >> Judyth's case, there should be objective documentation connecting >> >> Judyth to each person she says she and LHO were involved with. Having >> >> LHO open the door for her into this secret world may be enough to make >> >> a great-reading book, but not enough to demonstrate to us that such a >> >> plot existed and that she and LHO were at the center of it.
>> >> At the same time, we have to acknowledge that we are asking for >> >> documentation of secret plots and hidden agendas for which there was >> >> not supposed to be any documentation.
>> >> Trusting Judyth and Martin's statements that (most of) the >> >> documentation is in the book, we must assume that the remainder of any >> >> documentation is not going to be forthcoming from Judyth or Martin. It >> >> is perhaps the task, if we so desire, of the research community to >> >> follow up on some of the numerous statements Judyth has made to see >> >> where witnesses may still be living who can corroborate or deny her >> >> statements.
There are three witnesses to Judyth's personal relationship with Lee Oswald. One of the three dislikes her, and another of the three has had no contact with her in recent years. They would seem to be relatively objective on the subject. Something that seems to be forgotten is her handwritten notes of a talk by David Ferrie. It would seem that people who know Ferrie could evaluate whether the notes seem to reflect the sort of thing that Ferrie might say. It could also be compared to known Ferrie statements and writings. The idea that further documentation "should" be "forthcoming from Martin" assumes that I HAVE documentation that isn't in the book. We made an effort to include all significant documentation IN the book. Some researchers have already followed up on elements of Judyth's account, and discovered new evidence as a result. It will be up to them to publish or make it available as they choose.
There seems to be a suggestion that Howard Platzman and I heard from Judyth and immediately began taking her word as gospel. In fact, we both spent quite a considerable period of time testing her, questioning her, examining her documentation, even meeting her in New Orleans to test her on the sites relating to her account. Even after we decided that she was genuine, we continued to test her on various things, and knowing the flaws of human memory, have continued to challenge her on things, as she will certainly attest. I have never backed "everything Judyth says," and I have consistently sought documentation. In some instances, due to the nature of the information. documentation is unlikely (secret project, affair, etc.). Anyone who knows me know that I've never accepted everything a witness says as right. A prime example was my challenge to Jean Hill at the Sudbury, Ontario JFK conference. There's no question she is a genuine witness--but there was also no question that she had drifted some distance from an accurate account of things.
Vince has never bothered to inform himself on any of this. Perhaps it's time that he did so.
I weakened before, then I got defiant...but I think you're right, Martin: I need to buy the book and read it for myself, without being distracted from the posters. I will TRY to keep an open mind.
Martin wrote: > There are three witnesses to Judyth's personal relationship with Lee > Oswald. One of the three dislikes her, and another of the three has had > no contact with her in recent years. They would seem to be relatively > objective on the subject. > Something that seems to be forgotten is her handwritten notes of a talk > by David Ferrie. It would seem that people who know Ferrie could > evaluate whether the notes seem to reflect the sort of thing that Ferrie > might say. It could also be compared to known Ferrie statements and > writings. > The idea that further documentation "should" be "forthcoming from > Martin" assumes that I HAVE documentation that isn't in the book. We > made an effort to include all significant documentation IN the book. > Some researchers have already followed up on elements of Judyth's > account, and discovered new evidence as a result. It will be up to them > to publish or make it available as they choose.
> There seems to be a suggestion that Howard Platzman and I heard from > Judyth and immediately began taking her word as gospel. In fact, we both > spent quite a considerable period of time testing her, questioning her, > examining her documentation, even meeting her in New Orleans to test her > on the sites relating to her account. Even after we decided that she was > genuine, we continued to test her on various things, and knowing the > flaws of human memory, have continued to challenge her on things, as she > will certainly attest. > I have never backed "everything Judyth says," and I have consistently > sought documentation. In some instances, due to the nature of the > information. documentation is unlikely (secret project, affair, etc.). > Anyone who knows me know that I've never accepted everything a witness > says as right. A prime example was my challenge to Jean Hill at the > Sudbury, Ontario JFK conference. There's no question she is a genuine > witness--but there was also no question that she had drifted some > distance from an accurate account of things.
> Vince has never bothered to inform himself on any of this. Perhaps it's > time that he did so.
Well, one thing is pretty clear here, Shackelford: You admit (and Pam concurs) that you've got no documentation to prove Judyth even knew Oswald or worked in a secret cancer lab with "Dr." David Ferrie (a guy who would be on a sex offender registers if he were still alive). And Judyth couldn't have picked a worse witness than Anna Lewis because her husband beat her to the witness box by about 35 years and never said a word about their alleged double dates with those two marital cheaters, Judyth & Lee, although he was running all over the place claiming Oswald sightings in an effort to horn in on the Garrison investigation. Moreover, the fact that Anna Lewis refused to appear in the Nigel Turner docudrama on Judyth and repeat this fable tells us she's sorry she ever got involved with Team Judyth in the first place. And they want $49.99 for all of this.
Martin wrote: > There are three witnesses to Judyth's personal relationship with Lee > Oswald. One of the three dislikes her, and another of the three has had > no contact with her in recent years. They would seem to be relatively > objective on the subject. > Something that seems to be forgotten is her handwritten notes of a talk > by David Ferrie. It would seem that people who know Ferrie could > evaluate whether the notes seem to reflect the sort of thing that Ferrie > might say. It could also be compared to known Ferrie statements and > writings. > The idea that further documentation "should" be "forthcoming from > Martin" assumes that I HAVE documentation that isn't in the book. We > made an effort to include all significant documentation IN the book. > Some researchers have already followed up on elements of Judyth's > account, and discovered new evidence as a result. It will be up to them > to publish or make it available as they choose.
> There seems to be a suggestion that Howard Platzman and I heard from > Judyth and immediately began taking her word as gospel. In fact, we both > spent quite a considerable period of time testing her, questioning her, > examining her documentation, even meeting her in New Orleans to test her > on the sites relating to her account. Even after we decided that she was > genuine, we continued to test her on various things, and knowing the > flaws of human memory, have continued to challenge her on things, as she > will certainly attest. > I have never backed "everything Judyth says," and I have consistently > sought documentation. In some instances, due to the nature of the > information. documentation is unlikely (secret project, affair, etc.). > Anyone who knows me know that I've never accepted everything a witness > says as right. A prime example was my challenge to Jean Hill at the > Sudbury, Ontario JFK conference. There's no question she is a genuine > witness--but there was also no question that she had drifted some > distance from an accurate account of things.
> Vince has never bothered to inform himself on any of this. Perhaps it's > time that he did so.
You know some might be right and some are wrong if it comes up to Judyth Vary Baker. One thing I want to bring forward today, nobody is perfect and that brings me to the next level. It proofs that you just believe everthing she says about us, you claim you have proof in email format what can be posted by anyone its no proof, same as I have emails from her could be posted by somebody else yet you are attacking us as social worker, 25 years working together with the police? That brings questions because your answers based on what I see are personal to us and they have nothing to do with JFK, Judyth does the same, she promised me a copy of her book yet she talks about items she forgot or things I just don't know what she means with "black book" I don't. Its time that she tells you, so you can ask me how that book looks like, so I can look for it don't you think?
> Well, one thing is pretty clear here, Shackelford: You admit (and Pam > concurs) that you've got no documentation to prove Judyth even knew > Oswald or worked in a secret cancer lab with "Dr." David Ferrie (a guy > who would be on a sex offender registers if he were still alive). And > Judyth couldn't have picked a worse witness than Anna Lewis because her > husband beat her to the witness box by about 35 years and never said a > word about their alleged double dates with those two marital cheaters, > Judyth & Lee, although he was running all over the place claiming > Oswald sightings in an effort to horn in on the Garrison investigation. > Moreover, the fact that Anna Lewis refused to appear in the Nigel > Turner docudrama on Judyth and repeat this fable tells us she's sorry > she ever got involved with Team Judyth in the first place. And they > want $49.99 for all of this.
> JGL
> Martin wrote: >> There are three witnesses to Judyth's personal relationship with Lee >> Oswald. One of the three dislikes her, and another of the three has had >> no contact with her in recent years. They would seem to be relatively >> objective on the subject. >> Something that seems to be forgotten is her handwritten notes of a talk >> by David Ferrie. It would seem that people who know Ferrie could >> evaluate whether the notes seem to reflect the sort of thing that Ferrie >> might say. It could also be compared to known Ferrie statements and >> writings. >> The idea that further documentation "should" be "forthcoming from >> Martin" assumes that I HAVE documentation that isn't in the book. We >> made an effort to include all significant documentation IN the book. >> Some researchers have already followed up on elements of Judyth's >> account, and discovered new evidence as a result. It will be up to them >> to publish or make it available as they choose.
>> There seems to be a suggestion that Howard Platzman and I heard from >> Judyth and immediately began taking her word as gospel. In fact, we both >> spent quite a considerable period of time testing her, questioning her, >> examining her documentation, even meeting her in New Orleans to test her >> on the sites relating to her account. Even after we decided that she was >> genuine, we continued to test her on various things, and knowing the >> flaws of human memory, have continued to challenge her on things, as she >> will certainly attest. >> I have never backed "everything Judyth says," and I have consistently >> sought documentation. In some instances, due to the nature of the >> information. documentation is unlikely (secret project, affair, etc.). >> Anyone who knows me know that I've never accepted everything a witness >> says as right. A prime example was my challenge to Jean Hill at the >> Sudbury, Ontario JFK conference. There's no question she is a genuine >> witness--but there was also no question that she had drifted some >> distance from an accurate account of things.
>> Vince has never bothered to inform himself on any of this. Perhaps it's >> time that he did so.
On 01 Aug 2006 01:40:18 EDT, Martin <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>There are three witnesses to Judyth's personal relationship with Lee >Oswald. One of the three dislikes her, and another of the three has had >no contact with her in recent years. They would seem to be relatively >objective on the subject.
Whether they are objective about Judyth or not, these are your and Judyth's witnesses. They too managed to stay silent for many years, so are not on record anywhere. They are not available for us to question.
>Something that seems to be forgotten is her handwritten notes of a talk >by David Ferrie. It would seem that people who know Ferrie could >evaluate whether the notes seem to reflect the sort of thing that Ferrie >might say. It could also be compared to known Ferrie statements and >writings.
If the notes had been in Ferrie's handwriting, which was my original impression, that would be significant. As they are in Judyth's, that has much less weight.
>The idea that further documentation "should" be "forthcoming from >Martin" assumes that I HAVE documentation that isn't in the book. We >made an effort to include all significant documentation IN the book. >Some researchers have already followed up on elements of Judyth's >account, and discovered new evidence as a result. It will be up to them >to publish or make it available as they choose.
Acknowledged.
>There seems to be a suggestion that Howard Platzman and I heard from >Judyth and immediately began taking her word as gospel. In fact, we both >spent quite a considerable period of time testing her, questioning her, >examining her documentation, even meeting her in New Orleans to test her >on the sites relating to her account.
It still sounds as if your vetting was Judyth-oriented. With all due respect, it does seem that a less subjective approach might have illuminated the gaps in documentation more quickly.
> Even after we decided that she was >genuine, we continued to test her on various things, and knowing the >flaws of human memory, have continued to challenge her on things, as she >will certainly attest.
Aha. Here is the nexus of the issue -- "You decided Judyth was geniune". What made you think you were capable of making that decision on your own? And what does "genuine" mean?
The unspoken tenet behind many of your statements seems to be "it's good enough for us; it should be good enough for you."
>I have never backed "everything Judyth says," and I have consistently >sought documentation.
Martin, you posted a photo of a green glass as documentation, a photo of Judyth, and an unsent letter of Judyth's. How can you possibly consider any of them in and of themselves 'documentation' of anything other than Judyth?
> In some instances, due to the nature of the >information. documentation is unlikely (secret project, affair, etc.). >Anyone who knows me know that I've never accepted everything a witness >says as right.
I would hope not.
>A prime example was my challenge to Jean Hill at the >Sudbury, Ontario JFK conference. There's no question she is a genuine >witness--but there was also no question that she had drifted some >distance from an accurate account of things.
I acknowledge that. I am very concerned about how much Judyth's 'digging' has amplified her statements.
>Vince has never bothered to inform himself on any of this. Perhaps it's >time that he did so.
This is just a corollary not pertaining specifically to Judyth-sometimes there is little or no documentation-does that mean the person is lying? No. Sometimes there is no corroborating witnessess or any that will go on the record, does that mean the person is lying? No.
Look at McAdams website filled with supposed debunkings that haven't been debunked. or Posner's book-There is a lot more to Robert Morrow and Roscoe White than you would find there.
Stop being a complete stooge, Leyden. There are three witnesses who confirm that Judyth and Lee were together that summer. In case you've forgotten, witnesses are a form of documentation. As for Anna not willing to be interviewed for the Turner program, she declined to be interviewed by ANYONE after her statement was on videotape--she felt that once was enough. You leave out the fact that when she was asked if she had changed her mind, she STOOD BY HER STATEMENT 100%!!!!!! The only thing "pretty clear" here is that you have no interest whatsoever in the truth.
As for Frans, you think that Judyth has a big pile of free books she can hand out to anyone who wants one? Buy the book like everyone else.
Pamela, why do you say "these are your and Judyth's witnesses"? It's true that Judyth located two of them--and I spent time testing Anna with a variety of questions. I found it telling later that even after she had a dispute with Judyth and refused to have anything more to do with her, she stressed that she still stood by her statement completely. McCullough was reluctant even to talk with Judyth, but finally allowed her to audiotape a statement. The third witness is by NO stretch of the imagination my witness or Judyth's witness. Another researcher, SKEPTICAL of Judyth's account, hired a private investigator to look into it himself--and ended up believing her after finding Reily employees that remembered her, and after Adrian Alba picked her out of a photo array as someone who he had seen with Lee that summer. How does he become "our" witness? Neither of us has ever met the man. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Judyth-oriented"--it was HER account we were challenging. "Genuine" means an actual witness to events in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. I made my best judgment on the matter, and I stand by it. And what the hell gives you the idea that I made it entirely "on my own"? Howard was also scrutinizing her; I spent a day with former Congressional investigator Howard Liebengood, who told us he had reason to believe she was authentic. The producers at "60 Minutes" also told us they believed she was genuine. You don't seem to have a clue about why I posted the items I did. I posted them because they have been much talked-about, but most people had never seen them. No other reason.
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:37:18 GMT, pamel...@mindspring.com wrote: >On 01 Aug 2006 01:40:18 EDT, Martin <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>There are three witnesses to Judyth's personal relationship with Lee >>Oswald. One of the three dislikes her, and another of the three has had >>no contact with her in recent years. They would seem to be relatively >>objective on the subject.
>Whether they are objective about Judyth or not, these are your and >Judyth's witnesses. They too managed to stay silent for many years, >so are not on record anywhere. They are not available for us to >question.
>>Something that seems to be forgotten is her handwritten notes of a talk >>by David Ferrie. It would seem that people who know Ferrie could >>evaluate whether the notes seem to reflect the sort of thing that Ferrie >>might say. It could also be compared to known Ferrie statements and >>writings.
>If the notes had been in Ferrie's handwriting, which was my original >impression, that would be significant. As they are in Judyth's, that >has much less weight.
>>The idea that further documentation "should" be "forthcoming from >>Martin" assumes that I HAVE documentation that isn't in the book. We >>made an effort to include all significant documentation IN the book. >>Some researchers have already followed up on elements of Judyth's >>account, and discovered new evidence as a result. It will be up to them >>to publish or make it available as they choose.
>Acknowledged.
>>There seems to be a suggestion that Howard Platzman and I heard from >>Judyth and immediately began taking her word as gospel. In fact, we both >>spent quite a considerable period of time testing her, questioning her, >>examining her documentation, even meeting her in New Orleans to test her >>on the sites relating to her account.
>It still sounds as if your vetting was Judyth-oriented. With all due >respect, it does seem that a less subjective approach might have >illuminated the gaps in documentation more quickly.
>> Even after we decided that she was >>genuine, we continued to test her on various things, and knowing the >>flaws of human memory, have continued to challenge her on things, as she >>will certainly attest.
>Aha. Here is the nexus of the issue -- "You decided Judyth was >geniune". What made you think you were capable of making that >decision on your own? And what does "genuine" mean?
>The unspoken tenet behind many of your statements seems to be "it's >good enough for us; it should be good enough for you."
>>I have never backed "everything Judyth says," and I have consistently >>sought documentation.
>Martin, you posted a photo of a green glass as documentation, a photo >of Judyth, and an unsent letter of Judyth's. How can you possibly >consider any of them in and of themselves 'documentation' of anything >other than Judyth?
>> In some instances, due to the nature of the >>information. documentation is unlikely (secret project, affair, etc.). >>Anyone who knows me know that I've never accepted everything a witness >>says as right.
>I would hope not.
>>A prime example was my challenge to Jean Hill at the >>Sudbury, Ontario JFK conference. There's no question she is a genuine >>witness--but there was also no question that she had drifted some >>distance from an accurate account of things.
>I acknowledge that. I am very concerned about how much Judyth's >'digging' has amplified her statements.
>>Vince has never bothered to inform himself on any of this. Perhaps it's >>time that he did so.
Excellent questions and responses, Pamela. I believe your having withheld much comment and your support of Judyth having a story that needed to be heard and evaluated pre-book bolsters the credibility of your level headed and common sense comments and questions now that you have read the book. And that is, imo, quite telling ... should be a heads up to people anyway.
I think you went into this wanting very much to believe, and very much expecting all that documentation Martin promised for years ... and have now seen for yourself that the "documentation" is really not documentation at all and basically the entire house of cards stand on Judyth's sayso.
Thank you for your comments, incisive questions ... and challenges. It's valuable for all of us.
Barb Junkkarinen wrote: > On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:37:18 GMT, pamel...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >On 01 Aug 2006 01:40:18 EDT, Martin <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >>There are three witnesses to Judyth's personal relationship with Lee > >>Oswald. One of the three dislikes her, and another of the three has had > >>no contact with her in recent years. They would seem to be relatively > >>objective on the subject.
> >Whether they are objective about Judyth or not, these are your and > >Judyth's witnesses. They too managed to stay silent for many years, > >so are not on record anywhere. They are not available for us to > >question.
> >>Something that seems to be forgotten is her handwritten notes of a talk > >>by David Ferrie. It would seem that people who know Ferrie could > >>evaluate whether the notes seem to reflect the sort of thing that Ferrie > >>might say. It could also be compared to known Ferrie statements and > >>writings.
> >If the notes had been in Ferrie's handwriting, which was my original > >impression, that would be significant. As they are in Judyth's, that > >has much less weight.
> >>The idea that further documentation "should" be "forthcoming from > >>Martin" assumes that I HAVE documentation that isn't in the book. We > >>made an effort to include all significant documentation IN the book. > >>Some researchers have already followed up on elements of Judyth's > >>account, and discovered new evidence as a result. It will be up to them > >>to publish or make it available as they choose.
> >Acknowledged.
> >>There seems to be a suggestion that Howard Platzman and I heard from > >>Judyth and immediately began taking her word as gospel. In fact, we both > >>spent quite a considerable period of time testing her, questioning her, > >>examining her documentation, even meeting her in New Orleans to test her > >>on the sites relating to her account.
> >It still sounds as if your vetting was Judyth-oriented. With all due > >respect, it does seem that a less subjective approach might have > >illuminated the gaps in documentation more quickly.
> >> Even after we decided that she was > >>genuine, we continued to test her on various things, and knowing the > >>flaws of human memory, have continued to challenge her on things, as she > >>will certainly attest.
> >Aha. Here is the nexus of the issue -- "You decided Judyth was > >geniune". What made you think you were capable of making that > >decision on your own? And what does "genuine" mean?
> >The unspoken tenet behind many of your statements seems to be "it's > >good enough for us; it should be good enough for you."
> >>I have never backed "everything Judyth says," and I have consistently > >>sought documentation.
> >Martin, you posted a photo of a green glass as documentation, a photo > >of Judyth, and an unsent letter of Judyth's. How can you possibly > >consider any of them in and of themselves 'documentation' of anything > >other than Judyth?
> >> In some instances, due to the nature of the > >>information. documentation is unlikely (secret project, affair, etc.). > >>Anyone who knows me know that I've never accepted everything a witness > >>says as right.
> >I would hope not.
> >>A prime example was my challenge to Jean Hill at the > >>Sudbury, Ontario JFK conference. There's no question she is a genuine > >>witness--but there was also no question that she had drifted some > >>distance from an accurate account of things.
> >I acknowledge that. I am very concerned about how much Judyth's > >'digging' has amplified her statements.
> >>Vince has never bothered to inform himself on any of this. Perhaps it's > >>time that he did so.
> Excellent questions and responses, Pamela. I believe your having > withheld much comment and your support of Judyth having a story that > needed to be heard and evaluated pre-book bolsters the credibility of > your level headed and common sense comments and questions now that you > have read the book. And that is, imo, quite telling ... should be a > heads up to people anyway.
I am working my way through the book and I do find it very interesting.
> I think you went into this wanting very much to believe, and very > much expecting all that documentation Martin promised for years ... > and have now seen for yourself that the "documentation" is really not > documentation at all and basically the entire house of cards stand on > Judyth's sayso.
What I'm hoping to do here is define what different levels of documentation are used and, in the process, perhaps understand why there seems to have been such a disconnect between Martin and Judyth and much of the rest of the community.
My first thought is how much I had hoped Martin would place Judyth's documentation in the framework of that of an historical document, where there are different types and levels of documentation that are weighed differently. I have found that everything seems to be glopped in together, and that is distressing. I am not saying that there is not documentation for many of the statements Judyth is making; it is that the documentation frequently consists of statements which need to be further investigated, or inner knowledge of things that may or may not be true, as not much definition has yet been done.
So, far from dismissing Judyth's book, I am finding myself drawn more into it, looking at avenues of research in a new light, looking also to the expertise of others in hopes of gaining further definition.
> Thank you for your comments, incisive questions ... and challenges. > It's valuable for all of us. > u > Barb :-)
>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:37:18 GMT, pamel...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>>On 01 Aug 2006 01:40:18 EDT, Martin <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>>There are three witnesses to Judyth's personal relationship with Lee >>>>Oswald. One of the three dislikes her, and another of the three has had >>>>no contact with her in recent years. They would seem to be relatively >>>>objective on the subject.
>>>Whether they are objective about Judyth or not, these are your and >>>Judyth's witnesses. They too managed to stay silent for many years, >>>so are not on record anywhere. They are not available for us to >>>question.
>>>>Something that seems to be forgotten is her handwritten notes of a talk >>>>by David Ferrie. It would seem that people who know Ferrie could >>>>evaluate whether the notes seem to reflect the sort of thing that Ferrie >>>>might say. It could also be compared to known Ferrie statements and >>>>writings.
>>>If the notes had been in Ferrie's handwriting, which was my original >>>impression, that would be significant. As they are in Judyth's, that >>>has much less weight.
>>>>The idea that further documentation "should" be "forthcoming from >>>>Martin" assumes that I HAVE documentation that isn't in the book. We >>>>made an effort to include all significant documentation IN the book. >>>>Some researchers have already followed up on elements of Judyth's >>>>account, and discovered new evidence as a result. It will be up to them >>>>to publish or make it available as they choose.
>>>Acknowledged.
>>>>There seems to be a suggestion that Howard Platzman and I heard from >>>>Judyth and immediately began taking her word as gospel. In fact, we both >>>>spent quite a considerable period of time testing her, questioning her, >>>>examining her documentation, even meeting her in New Orleans to test her >>>>on the sites relating to her account.
>>>It still sounds as if your vetting was Judyth-oriented. With all due >>>respect, it does seem that a less subjective approach might have >>>illuminated the gaps in documentation more quickly.
>>>>Even after we decided that she was >>>>genuine, we continued to test her on various things, and knowing the >>>>flaws of human memory, have continued to challenge her on things, as she >>>>will certainly attest.
>>>Aha. Here is the nexus of the issue -- "You decided Judyth was >>>geniune". What made you think you were capable of making that >>>decision on your own? And what does "genuine" mean?
>>>The unspoken tenet behind many of your statements seems to be "it's >>>good enough for us; it should be good enough for you."
>>>>I have never backed "everything Judyth says," and I have consistently >>>>sought documentation.
>>>Martin, you posted a photo of a green glass as documentation, a photo >>>of Judyth, and an unsent letter of Judyth's. How can you possibly >>>consider any of them in and of themselves 'documentation' of anything >>>other than Judyth?
>>>>In some instances, due to the nature of the >>>>information. documentation is unlikely (secret project, affair, etc.). >>>>Anyone who knows me know that I've never accepted everything a witness >>>>says as right.
>>>I would hope not.
>>>>A prime example was my challenge to Jean Hill at the >>>>Sudbury, Ontario JFK conference. There's no question she is a genuine >>>>witness--but there was also no question that she had drifted some >>>>distance from an accurate account of things.
>>>I acknowledge that. I am very concerned about how much Judyth's >>>'digging' has amplified her statements.
>>>>Vince has never bothered to inform himself on any of this. Perhaps it's >>>>time that he did so.
>>Excellent questions and responses, Pamela. I believe your having >>withheld much comment and your support of Judyth having a story that >>needed to be heard and evaluated pre-book bolsters the credibility of >>your level headed and common sense comments and questions now that you >>have read the book. And that is, imo, quite telling ... should be a >>heads up to people anyway.
> I am working my way through the book and I do find it very interesting.
>> I think you went into this wanting very much to believe, and very >>much expecting all that documentation Martin promised for years ... >>and have now seen for yourself that the "documentation" is really not >>documentation at all and basically the entire house of cards stand on >>Judyth's sayso.
> What I'm hoping to do here is define what different levels of > documentation are used and, in the process, perhaps understand why there > seems to have been such a disconnect between Martin and Judyth and much of > the rest of the community.
> My first thought is how much I had hoped Martin would place Judyth's > documentation in the framework of that of an historical document, where > there are different types and levels of documentation that are weighed > differently. I have found that everything seems to be glopped in > together, and that is distressing. I am not saying that there is not > documentation for many of the statements Judyth is making; it is that the > documentation frequently consists of statements which need to be further > investigated, or inner knowledge of things that may or may not be true, as > not much definition has yet been done.
> So, far from dismissing Judyth's book, I am finding myself drawn more into > it, looking at avenues of research in a new light, looking also to the > expertise of others in hopes of gaining further definition.
>>Thank you for your comments, incisive questions ... and challenges. >>It's valuable for all of us. >>u >>Barb :-)
> >>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:37:18 GMT, pamel...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >>>On 01 Aug 2006 01:40:18 EDT, Martin <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >>>>There are three witnesses to Judyth's personal relationship with Lee > >>>>Oswald. One of the three dislikes her, and another of the three has had > >>>>no contact with her in recent years. They would seem to be relatively > >>>>objective on the subject.
> >>>Whether they are objective about Judyth or not, these are your and > >>>Judyth's witnesses. They too managed to stay silent for many years, > >>>so are not on record anywhere. They are not available for us to > >>>question.
> >>>>Something that seems to be forgotten is her handwritten notes of a talk > >>>>by David Ferrie. It would seem that people who know Ferrie could > >>>>evaluate whether the notes seem to reflect the sort of thing that Ferrie > >>>>might say. It could also be compared to known Ferrie statements and > >>>>writings.
> >>>If the notes had been in Ferrie's handwriting, which was my original > >>>impression, that would be significant. As they are in Judyth's, that > >>>has much less weight.
> >>>>The idea that further documentation "should" be "forthcoming from > >>>>Martin" assumes that I HAVE documentation that isn't in the book. We > >>>>made an effort to include all significant documentation IN the book. > >>>>Some researchers have already followed up on elements of Judyth's > >>>>account, and discovered new evidence as a result. It will be up to them > >>>>to publish or make it available as they choose.
> >>>Acknowledged.
> >>>>There seems to be a suggestion that Howard Platzman and I heard from > >>>>Judyth and immediately began taking her word as gospel. In fact, we both > >>>>spent quite a considerable period of time testing her, questioning her, > >>>>examining her documentation, even meeting her in New Orleans to test her > >>>>on the sites relating to her account.
> >>>It still sounds as if your vetting was Judyth-oriented. With all due > >>>respect, it does seem that a less subjective approach might have > >>>illuminated the gaps in documentation more quickly.
> >>>>Even after we decided that she was > >>>>genuine, we continued to test her on various things, and knowing the > >>>>flaws of human memory, have continued to challenge her on things, as she > >>>>will certainly attest.
> >>>Aha. Here is the nexus of the issue -- "You decided Judyth was > >>>geniune". What made you think you were capable of making that > >>>decision on your own? And what does "genuine" mean?
> >>>The unspoken tenet behind many of your statements seems to be "it's > >>>good enough for us; it should be good enough for you."
> >>>>I have never backed "everything Judyth says," and I have consistently > >>>>sought documentation.
> >>>Martin, you posted a photo of a green glass as documentation, a photo > >>>of Judyth, and an unsent letter of Judyth's. How can you possibly > >>>consider any of them in and of themselves 'documentation' of anything > >>>other than Judyth?
> >>>>In some instances, due to the nature of the > >>>>information. documentation is unlikely (secret project, affair, etc.). > >>>>Anyone who knows me know that I've never accepted everything a witness > >>>>says as right.
> >>>I would hope not.
> >>>>A prime example was my challenge to Jean Hill at the > >>>>Sudbury, Ontario JFK conference. There's no question she is a genuine > >>>>witness--but there was also no question that she had drifted some > >>>>distance from an accurate account of things.
> >>>I acknowledge that. I am very concerned about how much Judyth's > >>>'digging' has amplified her statements.
> >>>>Vince has never bothered to inform himself on any of this. Perhaps it's > >>>>time that he did so.
> >>Excellent questions and responses, Pamela. I believe your having > >>withheld much comment and your support of Judyth having a story that > >>needed to be heard and evaluated pre-book bolsters the credibility of > >>your level headed and common sense comments and questions now that you > >>have read the book. And that is, imo, quite telling ... should be a > >>heads up to people anyway.
> > I am working my way through the book and I do find it very interesting.
> >> I think you went into this wanting very much to believe, and very > >>much expecting all that documentation Martin promised for years ... > >>and have now seen for yourself that the "documentation" is really not > >>documentation at all and basically the entire house of cards stand on > >>Judyth's sayso.
> > What I'm hoping to do here is define what different levels of > > documentation are used and, in the process, perhaps understand why there > > seems to have been such a disconnect between Martin and Judyth and much of > > the rest of the community.
> > My first thought is how much I had hoped Martin would place Judyth's > > documentation in the framework of that of an historical document, where > > there are different types and levels of documentation that are weighed > > differently. I have found that everything seems to be glopped in > > together, and that is distressing. I am not saying that there is not > > documentation for many of the statements Judyth is making; it is that the > > documentation frequently consists of statements which need to be further > > investigated, or inner knowledge of things that may or may not be true, as > > not much definition has yet been done.
> > So, far from dismissing Judyth's book, I am finding myself drawn more into > > it, looking at avenues of research in a new light, looking also to the > > expertise of others in hopes of gaining further definition.
> >>Thank you for your comments, incisive questions ... and challenges. > >>It's valuable for all of us. > >>u > >>Barb :-)
You are a wonder, Shackelford. You say you spent time testing Anna Lewis but that was a good six months after Judyth had done a bland audiotape interview with her. Who knows what Judyth promised her. At any rate, when Judyth couldn't deliver, Anna said I'm outta here. Told Nigel Turner to go fly a kite when he asked to interview her for his docudrama on Judyth. Some "documentation."
Martin Shackelford wrote: > Stop being a complete stooge, Leyden. There are three witnesses who > confirm that Judyth and Lee were together that summer. In case you've > forgotten, witnesses are a form of documentation. > As for Anna not willing to be interviewed for the Turner program, she > declined to be interviewed by ANYONE after her statement was on > videotape--she felt that once was enough. You leave out the fact that > when she was asked if she had changed her mind, she STOOD BY HER > STATEMENT 100%!!!!!! > The only thing "pretty clear" here is that you have no interest > whatsoever in the truth.
> As for Frans, you think that Judyth has a big pile of free books she can > hand out to anyone who wants one? Buy the book like everyone else.
> Pamela, why do you say "these are your and Judyth's witnesses"? It's > true that Judyth located two of them--and I spent time testing Anna with > a variety of questions. I found it telling later that even after she had > a dispute with Judyth and refused to have anything more to do with her, > she stressed that she still stood by her statement completely. > McCullough was reluctant even to talk with Judyth, but finally allowed > her to audiotape a statement. The third witness is by NO stretch of the > imagination my witness or Judyth's witness. Another researcher, > SKEPTICAL of Judyth's account, hired a private investigator to look into > it himself--and ended up believing her after finding Reily employees > that remembered her, and after Adrian Alba picked her out of a photo > array as someone who he had seen with Lee that summer. How does he > become "our" witness? Neither of us has ever met the man. > I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Judyth-oriented"--it was HER > account we were challenging. > "Genuine" means an actual witness to events in New Orleans in the summer > of 1963. I made my best judgment on the matter, and I stand by it. And > what the hell gives you the idea that I made it entirely "on my own"? > Howard was also scrutinizing her; I spent a day with former > Congressional investigator Howard Liebengood, who told us he had reason > to believe she was authentic. The producers at "60 Minutes" also told us > they believed she was genuine. > You don't seem to have a clue about why I posted the items I did. I > posted them because they have been much talked-about, but most people > had never seen them. No other reason.
