JUDYTH BAKER THE QUEEN OF TWIST
Dr Truth
To: Robert Vernon
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:07 am
Subject: Re: EXPLAIN
To all who are interested in whether or not researchers in the JFK
research community should use fake names: from Judyth Vary Baker
===========================================
I have been told that David Blackburst (Stephen Roy) has posted on the
Education Forum, but I cannot seem to find the post.
I read his post here, and now reproduce that post here, with my
comments.
Before going any further, I would like to say that I regret having
made Mr. Roy feel uncomfortable about telling people about his other name. I
didn't do it to be mean to Mr. Roy.
Since Mr. Roy has said he has even used both names at the Lancer
Conference, I do not wholly understand why he is upset with me for
mentioning his fake name now. He also said he would be publishing his book
under his real name, so again, I do not understand why he is upset with me
at revealing his true name to you here.
I brought out Mr. Roy's real name on this forum because I believe that
we must be frank and open with each other if we are to work in harmony
together and in trust.
Mr. Blackburst, below, wrote that he believed we were friends.
I concur.
BUT -- Mr. Roy NEVER told me his real name all the years we were
"friends."
I had to discover by accident that he was Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy was at the 2000 Lancer Conference, for example, but Mr.
Blackburst, my friend, apparently did not attend, for he was cc'd about my
concerns and did not mention that he was a panelist there.
Mr. Roy did not bring up my name at the Conference, whereas my friend,
Mr. Blackburst, had he attended the Conference, would surely have done so,
for he knew how impoprtant it was to me to tell people that I believed Lee
Oswald was an innocent man.
Mr. Blackburst, my friend, had he attended the conference, would have
asked me if I would have wanted to have my name mentioned. In fact, he
already knew that I would have preferred it, because it was new information
for those who came to the conference, and they had the right to know that a
new witness was presenting. After all, I had already been known to Mr.
Blackburst, my friend, for a year by then. And I had communicated in private
emails that I was even thinking of attending the conference myself. I was
dissuaded from doing so by my friends.
When I told Debra Cionway I suspected that she instructed the panel on
which Mr. Roy sat not to mention my name, Mr. Roy wrote back to Lancer and
said he had not been so instructed. My friend, Mr. Blackburst, would have
comforted me at this time and perhaps given me advice on how to handle the
situation. But only Mr. Roy was involved at Lancer....
Even as late as 2005, my friend, Mr. Blackburst, never told me in
private what went on. I had to learn from the post of Mr. Roy, today, what
my friend, Mr. Blackburst, really was thinking at the Conference.
This is just the kind of thing that has to stop.
We must be frank and open.
We must not play the old games.
We can continue to go in circles, or we can be upfront and honest.
My friend, Mr. Blackburst, treated me fairly.
Mr. Roy, who never admitted to being my friend or to even knowing me,
did not.
==========================More below==========
For those who wish to read any more (I do not, but feel I must
continue....My comments are interspersed with Mr. Roy's =====like this====
I would also like to say that I have never experienced any problem
with Mr. Roy personally, except that I feel he was not entirely candid with
me, as I have indicated above, and I shall note below.
I did indeed feel we shared a friendship until I realized that he was
not treating me entirely honestly. If I have been in error concerning this,
I will certainly be happy to apologize. But please come with me to Mr. Roy's
post. There are always two sides to every story.
Best Regards, Judyth Vary Baker ====comments below=====
==================================================
Stephen Roy Today, 05:00 PM Post #51
> New Member
> Group: Members
> Posts: 2
> Joined: 7-January 05
> Member No.: 2230
> A big thank you to John Simkin for allowing me to pop in here an
> clairify a few points. I have been in touch with Judyth Vary Baker
since
> about 1999, and we have had a on-again/off-again private
correspondence.
> For some reason, Baker chose to go public with it in this forum over
the
> past week.
======= ======================================
No, Stephen, I have not gone public with your correspondence, which is
voluminous. I have mentioned only a very small part of the matter, as also
have you. I have not posted your emails except as it touched upon using a
false name on forums concerned with the JFK assassination, while using your
real name elsewhere. You also used your real name at Lancer, so still I
cannot understand why you are so upset that I have told people that these
two people happen to be the same person. =========more below========
>ROY/BLACKBURST: I came onto the internet in the mid-90s under a
variant of my given
> name, and I engaged in discussion on some JFK newsgroups. One day
while I
> was at work, a scraggly 40-ish man came to my door and said
something to
> my wife about me "perpetuating the coverup." She excused herself,
called
> me and the police, but the man walked away. My wife insisted and I
agreed
> to adopt a "screen name", something a bit more anonymous. I tried
several
> possibilities but AOL said they were already in use. AOL allows up
to 10
> characters, so I tried a TV term, "blackburst" (the signal to which
all
> video devices are synchronized in a TV studio), and AOL accepted it.
I
> became known as a David Ferrie specialist in the JFK groups. When
people
> would ask my first name, I arbitrarily chose "Dave" (after Ferrie).
=====================================
This is all fine and good, except that you, Stephen, are not just
'anybody.'You have been declared THE expert on David W. Ferrie. YOU have
been the one who is, in fact, quoted everywhere.
But the name people quoted as THE authority was NOT the name that you
recently said would be listed as author of the book on Dave Ferrie. So,how
would anyone not in your inner circle know this?
You said you were my friend, but you never told me, for example, that
you were really Mr. Roy.
I am sorry if your wife was frightened, and I can understand your
decision to use the false name. However, since you used your real name at
the Lancer Conference, I believed, and I think quite reasonably, that you
were no longer afraid to use your real name since you had come forth and
presented yourself in person using your real name.
Meanwhile, we have identity problems -- a number of people use
multiple names and support their statements by writing to themselves and
praising themselves...just one example of how false names create the
illusion of many behind one, when that is not the case.
-- I felt it imperative to begin to identify those who have used false
names. My special concern with you remains that you are not just anybody.
YOU are THE expert on Dave Ferrie. As such, everyone needs to know that you
use two names in the research community--Blackburst and Roy.
=========================more below ============
ROY/BLACKBURST:
I explained publicly on a number of occasions that Blackburst was a
> pseudonym, and why I chose it. I also explained this by email to
several
> people. Eventually, I did share research with a few folks, which
> necessitated using my real name, but in a spirit of privacy.
========================-==================
In other words, Stephen, you have been posting information on the
Internet publicly under a fake name, but sharing research with a few people
privately using your real name. We have had a lot of that going on in the
research community.
===================more below===================
>ROY/BLACKBURST
In late 1999 or early 2000, I was contacted by Baker and her
> associates and we had numerous exchanges. I had a clear impresson
that
> Baker wanted to keep these exchanges private at that time. I also
wanted
> to remain on her bulk email list so that I could get the details of
her
> account.
================================================
This is not quite correct, Stephen. I did not contact you.
Dr. Howard Platzman did, and after awhile, I received copies of your
emails ABOUT me. I finally wrote to you because I did not like being talked
ABOUT when I felt it would be better if we could speak to each other
directly. I began to cc you on a large list on contacts after that.
================more below========================
>ROY/BLACKBURST
In the summer of 2000 I signed on to the JFKLancer Forum, but the
> rules required that I use my real name. I never used "Blackburst" on
my
> few posts on that forum.
=============================================
But Stephen, how would anybody know that MR ROY and MR BLACKBURST were
one and the same on the forum? How did they know that if they asked you
qwuestions about Dave Ferrie that YOU would be able to answer them, whereas
hardly anyone else in the world could do that? But they had no idea you were
that same expert, Mr. Blackburst.
==================more below========================
Debra Conway invited me to speak at the Lancer
> NID2000 conference, and the topic of my 30-minute talk was agreed
upon as
> "Ferrie: Man and Myth." Although I considered speaking as
Blackburst,
> Debra convinced me to use my real name. Of perhaps 100 or so topics
I
> could have mentioned about Ferrie, I chose about 10. When I arrived
in
> Dallas, I was given a name tag with my own name, and I wrote
"Blackburst"
> underneath it. I made no secret of my identity. I spoke to numerous
> attendees wearing this tag, including Steve Tyler, Joe Biles, Mary
> Ferrell, Peter Dale Scott and many others. The tag can be seen in
the
> video of my talk.
================================================
Then why in the name of heaven are you upset at me for revealing your
name and also mentuoning your wife's fright, etc? However, I had a unique
experience, and so did many others who did not attend the Conference> Mr.
Blackburst never said he attended this Conference. As I agonized about what
was going on, Mr,. Blackburst never indicated that Mr. Roy was going there,
would be there, and woukd return, and have all sorts of information. Mr.
Blackburst, my friend, never shared a single moment of that Conference with
his friend, Judyth Baker.
===================more below====================
> It has been erroneously suggested that I was asked not to mention
> Baker, but this is not true. I had not included Baker as part of my
> limited talk time, but I do recall some email just prior to the
> conference, in which she considered going to the event.
=================================================
Yes, you certainly should have recalled it, Mr. Roy, because Mr.
Blackburst, my friend, knew how upset I was at being told I should not go to
this conference, when I wished so very much for people to know that I wished
to speak out about the innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Blackburst knew I
wanted peopel to know that a new witness was willing to speak out. I had
just learned that debra Conway had not told me about this panel. I
complained to Mr. Blackburst and others later that I was very disappointed
that debra did not tell me about this panel. My friend, Mr. Blackburst, had
no information about the Conference to share with his friend, judyth Baker.
he knew no more than the rest of us who had not attended. Or so we all
thought.
======================more below===============
In the Q & A
> following my talk, a question arose about Edward Haslam's thesis in
"Mary,
> Ferrie and the Monkey Virus." I replied that I had reservations
about the
> paucity of evidence cited in the book, and the author's tendency to
ask a
> question on one page, then repeat it a few pages later as a fact.
> Nevertheless, I added (paraphrase) that a new witness had emerged
whose
> account, if proven true, could change the way we look at Oswald's
time in
> New Orleans. One or two other panelists then briefly made reference
to the
> Baker matter.
=================================================
Mr. Roy, you do not mention that the name "Baker" was never given out.
I also must remiond you that my friend Mr. Blackburst never told me he had
these reservations about Mr. Haslam's research, which in fact helps support
my testimony. Mr. Roy brought up reservations about Mr. Haslam that my
friend, Mr. Blackburst, never told me about.
========================more below===========
> At the time, I thought I was doing what Baker wanted.
=============================================
I have emails that provide ample evidence that this was not the case.
On the other hand, Mr. Blackburst received those emails, not Mr. Roy.
======================more below==================
Years later,
> questions were raised about whether ot not the panel was muzzled. I
saw no
> such thing. And questions were raised about why nobody mentioned
Baker.
> While her account was not part of my formal presentation, I DID
mention
> her in the Q/A.
==================================================
Years later, Mr. Roy told me what my friend Mr. Blackburst apparently
did not know, for my friend did not tell me one word about any of this.
===============more below=====================
> At various times over the years, Baker and her associates pointedly
> asked me why I would not come out and support her account. I replied
that
> I thought we should all wait to see what evidence was presented in
the
> book.
===============================================
I must admit that I said I hoped you would support me. I NEVER
pointedly asked my friend Mr. Blackburst to "come out"and "support"me. I DID
ask my friend Mr. Blackburst to CONFIRM certain points that we had discussed
that showed I knew Dave Ferrie. I never asked that he do this publicly, and
if I ever did, I woulkd ask Mr. Blackburst to show me the emails, because I
have never demanded support from any researcher. I have indeed asked for
confirmation of certain points. but not in public. So I am surprised that
Mr. Roy has stated this.
====================more below===================
> A few years back, I thought about setting up a meeting. As it was
> hard to get time off from work and home, I asked if I could do a
one-day
> turn around: Fly into Moisant, meet her at the airport for a few
hours,
> and fly home that night. Her emails at the time, which I saved,
indicate
> that she wanted to meet but did not have a vehicle available to
travel
> from her home to Moisant on my prospective date. I did not end up
meeting
> her, but I did give her my home phone number in the process
=======================================
What Mr. Roy fails to mention here is that I was offered this
opportunity in a very short window of time. I did offer to fly to HIM and
called him to try to make an appointment. He never called me back. I wrote
to him several times and asked him to call me. He failed to reply. Finally,
he wrote an email saying I had refused to meet him. He graciously accepted a
correction later and said we just couldn't get our schedules to mesh, but
this was not true. I could not obtain his address, though I tried. I have
support for these statements. By now, I was beginning to think maybe Mr.
Blackburst wasn't really my friend, after all.
======================more below===============
> As noted, I was long troubled by some of the assertions in Haslam's
> book, so I kept an eye out for anything to confirm or deny them. One
> assertion made by others (but not specifically by Haslam) is that
Ferrie
> had many white mice and did medical research in his last apartment
at 3330
> Louisiana Avenue Parkway.
==============================================
Haslam of course indicated that this work was done nearby, and that
included mice being housed nearby, not at Dave's. In fact, that was more or
less the case. However, concerning mice, I'm not certain if he removed them
on weekends. I know he removed them when he had two parties, telling me he
didn't want anybody messing with his mice. Mice: my main bone of contention
with Mr. Roy.
=================more below===============
The documents I found suggested that he did have
> such mice in 1957, six years and 3 living spaces perviously, but not
in
> 1963. As I interviewed people who knew Ferrie, I would ask about
this, and
> I was unable to find anyone who saw them in that period. This
includes
> several very close friends. Ferrie's landlord did not see mice or a
lab
> there. Pictures taken at at 1963 birthday party do not appear to
show
> them. Coroner's pictures from Ferrie's 1967 death do not show them.
=================================================
I believe when the books comes out that everything Mr. Roy does not
understand will become clear. However, in private I exoplained a lot of
these matteers, but then again, I explained them to my friend, Mr.
Blackburst, and we are now talking to Mr. Roy.
========================more below==============
> I communicated the above PRIVATELY to Baker and her associates. At
> some point, I was asked in the newsgroups if there was any
indication of
> mice in that apartment at that time. I decided to give a carefully
phrased
> and honest answer that none of those I spoke with recalled them.
This
> apparently angered Baker.
============================================
What upset me is that Mr. Blackburst would not reveal the names of the
friends, nor when he interviewed them, nor their quotations. The readers
were supposed to take Mr. Blackburst's word for it. HE was the expert. But I
was a living witness. I had also the witness of at least two other persons
who saw mice in Dave's apartment that summer. But to Mr.l Blackburst,
neither my witness, nor my two witnesses, counted,. yet he would not reveal
ANY of the people he said had a different opinion. Not all of them demanded
secrecy. I know this because I was in contact with one of Dave;s friends,
who has since died.
My friend, David Blackburst, would not give me the names of ANY of the
people he had interviewed who declared there were no mice present. he would
not give me any interview dates. he would not give me any quotations. But he
was cointent to publish on the newsgroups his research results-- that
"everybody" he had interviewed, without exception, ALL said there were no
mice, etc.
Was I angry? No. I was frustrated. I was concerned. I was saddened
that in five years of correspondence, Mr.Blackburst never gave me a single
name or direct quote. I was very patient, too.
=======================more below=================
> Baker also raised some question about "research technique", saying
> that I was wrong to bring witnesses together. Let me clarify: In
most
> cases, I contacted them by "cold-calling", or cold email or snail
mail.
===================================
"in most cases"i s not good enough. ONE case of an investigator
bringing witnesses together is ruinous. Imagine allowing two people who had
murdered somebody beuing allowed to talk together before they were
interviewed in jail. Similarly, in important matters such as Dave Ferrie's
past, witnersses must be kept apart so their stories will not merge. Mr.
Blackburst/Roy failed to do this, on more than one occasion, as he did admit
to me.
=====================more below===========
> The interviews would be either via telephone or one-on-one. On a few
> occasions, I would meet someone I had only spoken with on the phone
for
> lunch or some such thing. In several cases, one Ferrie acquaintence
would
> introduce me to another, and so on. And on two occasions while I was
in
> New Orleans, a couple of acquaintences who ALREADY KNEW other Ferrie
> friends would ask if they could join the friends and I for dinner.
=============================================
It makes no difference if these people already knew each other.
Important differences in testimony can emerge if they are interviewed
separately and if they are not allowed to meet the investigator except in a
research situation. Not only can researchers be conned by a group, any
individual in a group whgo is dominated will then be afraid to offer a
differing opinion later, for the investigator has not insulated himself or
herself from known others. The investigator should never allow witnesses to
kjnow who has been interviewed and who has not. The events described by Mr.
Blackburst are unfortunate and promote team agreement.
=======================more below================
I did
> NOT ever bring together people who did not already know each other.
===============================================
Illustration: Michael and Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald already knew
each other.
Obviously, it was important that they were interviewed separately. It
would be outrageous to have allowed them to mingle with each other prior to
being interviewed.
The fact that Mr. Roy cannot see what he has done, and how he said "I
did not EVER briing together people who did not already know each other"
proves that he did bring them together, and that he does not understand how
this contaminates the witnesses, is most unfortunate. Just such practices
have given the Kennedy assassination research community a non-professional
patina.
=======================more below==========
> And she has asked why I do not name some of these people. The first
> obvious reason is that some of these interviews were hard to get,
and I
> want exclusivity for future publication.
============================================
I only waited five years. How about even ONE name? Interestingly, I
freely gave the names of my witnesses to my friend, Mr. Blackburst, in the
interest of wishing to solve the case.
=======================more below===============
Another factor is privacy. Some
> were very reluctant to talk, and only did so on a pledge of privacy.
================================================
But not all of them felt that way. I know this for a fact, since I
knew one of them myself.
========================more below================
One
> is an elected official. Another is a community watch leader. Another
is a
> successful attorney. They don't want more publicity about "that
Ferrie
> thing." And still another factor: Ferrie was at least bisexual, and
had
> relationships with a few of these people, some as underage boys. One
can
> easily understand why I just "don't want to go there."
==================================================
Of course, others did not feel that way. We are talking about NOT ONE
quotation. Not ONE name. Not ONE interview date. Not ONE attempt to help me
meet any of them. We are talking, then, about a statement given to the
newsgroups that "all"the people Mr. Blackburst interviewed "agreed" that
there were "no mice"in Dave's apartment in 1963. The entire research
community is expected to take Mr. Blackburst's statement as gospel, as the
unvarnished truth, but we are allowed no names, no interview dates, and no
quotations. Several times, my friend mr. Blackburst said he would look up a
quote for me. He never managed to locate a single one in five years. I have
emails proving this.
=========================more below================
> Then in recent months, there was a flap over a complicated story
> involving Lee Harvey Oswald's tooth. Baker apparently incorporated
into
> her account some information I had either emailed or posted
concerning the
> date Ferrie first left the New Orleans Cadet Squadron of the Civil
Air
> Patrol.
==============================================
Foolishly,as does the rest of the research community, I blindly
believed what Mr. Blackburst published, and used his chronology to try to
pin down when Lee's tooth was knocked out. Lee never gave me a date. Mr.
Blackburst apologized that the information he had provided in an archive was
incorrect. By then, I had Dave Reitzes on my case over it.
========================more below===============
At one time, I had fragmentary dates and reported them in that
> way.
=============================================
And he published those "fragmentary dates"for the use of the research
community. After some thirty-odd years I took Mr. Blackburst';s word for the
dates when Dave Ferrie was at MNoisant, or when he was not, or when he was
at Lakefront, or when he was not. The dates were in some cases wrong.
==========================more below==============
I subsequently located and spoke with some who had first-hand
> knowledge of that event, and obtained news clippings which indicated
that
> a new commander was in place by January 1955. Baker then blamed the
flap
> on me, first privately, then publicly.
==================================================
Yes, because the information that was inaccurate REMAINED up for
everyone to use, and it was wrong. 'Lastb time I looked, it was STILL there,
and STILL wrong. Bet it gets fixed now.
it doesn't matter, because what Lee told me about, as Mr. Blackburst
is aware, occurred, he said, before Thanksgiving, if I recall correctly,
which is November, not December. Mr. Blackburst in fact wrote an email to me
saying it was posssible Lee and Dave Ferrie could have met in November 1954,
which was my original estimated date. I was certain that Lee's tooth had
been knocked out by the date David Blackburst gave me, and for which I am
now being excoriated by Mr. reitzes, because I trusted the erroneous date
supplied by Mr. Blackburst.
When the erroneous date and other erros rermained un changed in the
archives for weeks to come, without Mr. Blackburst correcting them, I began
to search for other inconsistencies in his reports. After I collected a few
more, I realized that people were blindly accepting everything Mrl.
Blackburst was writing, and I did not want anybody else to rely on incorrect
data and then be skewered as I had been.
As I looked deeper into the matter, I realized Mr. Roy was mr.
Blackburst. My friend, Mr. Blackburst, had never told me about the
convention that he had attended.
My friend, Mr. Blackburst, had never given me one quote to use.
My friend, Mr. Blackburst, had now published on the internet that
"all"Dave;s friends never saw any mice in his apartment when I had TWO
witnesses, plus myself, who stated otherwise. BY expressing "all"David
Blackburst excluded me from the list of those witnesses who claimed to have
known Dave Ferrie.
then he adeed the final blow, saying he was on the fence about me and
would have to wait to see if I were credible or not.
That was the last word I took on blind faith from my friend, Mr.
Blackburst.
======================more below==========
> In a private email, I noted that she should be careful about
> incorporating published materials about Ferrie into her account,
because
> 90% of those published materials are of questionable accuracy, and I
noted
> that I thought she was buying into things she was reading. She
somehow
> quoted this back to me in a private email as me saying her account
was 90%
> gleaned from published materials, which is not what I said.
====================================================
I do stand corrected in this matter. I was upset that Mr. Blackburst
said I had been, in fact "contaminated"and that is the word he used. By
saying he thought I was buying into things I was reading, he was saying that
my frienship and testimoiny concerning dave Ferrie was being affected by the
inaccurate accounts I was reading, that I was buying into them. It was now
that I did become upset with Mr. Blackburst. He was acting as if evidence I
had provided him in the past proving I knew Dave was worthless. He never
presented a single word to the newsgroups and research community that I had
provided him with proof that I did know Dave Ferrie. he kept that to himself
and to a very small group.
==============================see below=============
I
> Until recently, I considered Baker a friend. We had many pleasant
> exchanges and I offered private support as best I could.
=================================================
I will let the readers judge if Mr.Blackburst has treated me as a
friend. I certainly treated him as one.
========================see below================
For some reason,
> she has decided to take this into a public forum and violate several
> confidences. She has quoted private emails. More important, she has
given
> out my real name and personal info against my stated desires.
===============================================
If anyone doubts why I have brought these matters up-- andit is for
the sake of openness in the research community, I suggest that he or she
re-read this post.
==========================more below============
I TOLD HER
> several times that Blackburst was not my real name. I sent her a
photo of
> my family. I gave her my phone number, which would display my name
on
> callerID. Now she has let the toothpaste out of tube, and it can't
be
> pushed back in. I don't know what I've done to deserve this, but
Baker
> judgmentally emailed me that it was best for the research community,
and I
> would thank her someday.
===================================================
Well, maybe Mr. Blackburst/Mr. Roy will not thank me, but I hope
nobody ever goes through the dual identity mess that I was oput through with
Mr. Roy.Mr. Blackburst. Mr. Blackburst already had his name out there. I
have only done what is right, for people blindly rely on mr. Blackburst as
the fount of knowledge for Dave ferrie. they have the right, if they are
among those who do not know, to know. Why is he angry, when he, himself,
placed "Blackburst"as he has said, under his name "Roy"? I believe all of us
should know with whom we are dealing. I DID NOT KNOW MR, ROY, ON THE PANEL,
WAS MR., BLACKBURST, MY FRIEND. AND MT. BLACKBURST, MY FRIEND, LET ME
AGONIZE OVER WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT LANCER, as I can prove from emails. Was
Mr. Blackburst, then, ever my friend?
===============================more below==========
> She even indicated that she expects me to attack her. THIS is not an
> attack, but a careful worded defense, which still leaves some things
> private. I have no desire or reason to attack her. But the
friendship, if
> there was one, is over.
=================================================
I knew there would be a price to pay. I take no pleasure in making Mr.
Roy angry. If I happen to uncover other fake names, I will understand that
this will mean more voices coming against me. But in the end, the honest
researchers and the honest investigators will be known. And trusted. Isn't
it time we had everything aboveboard?
=====================more below============
I have asked, if she included a particuar exchange
> in her book, to delete it. I regret that she has come under bad
influences
> and has made some bad decisions.
================================================
Why in the world should information that Mr. Blackburst/Mr. Roy gave
me about Dave Ferrie be deleted? What is Mr. Roy's point? Is this to punish
me? Will this help the research community to understand the case better? Mr.
Roy/Blackburst gave me written permission, and now I am somehow to extract
the information wherever it is located and remove it because he has changed
his mind?
Why has he changed his mind? Mr.Roy gave his permission for this
information to be given to all and now he wants it removed. Is this the kind
of researcher we are asked to trust bklindly and fully?
There has to be responsibility taken for what we say and do. And once
we give our permission to use information, it is released, I cannot retract
it.
Imagine if I gave permission to one of you readers to use something I
had told you, and a year later say no, now you cannot use it., But by then
others have seen it and used it, because you freely gave it to others. Would
I have a right to be angry at you then?
In this case, mr. Blackburst\/Roy already gave permission for the
materials about Dave which he said I could use to be published. He acts as
if I can somehow rip it out of the past, wher eit has gone to others, and
where it has been used in my writings, now that he has suddenly changed his
mind.
I leave it to the good sense of the readers here to decide if Mr. Roy
is helping or hindering the truth by making this demand.
========================more below============
> (BTW, I had the "Coke Syndrome" with my computer, spilling a partial
> can of Coke onto the keys. It works OK, but I have very sticky keys,
> requiring me to keep going back to see if I have miskeyed. Apologies
for
> any typos!)
==================================================
use pipe cleaners with lemon juice and try that! :- ) JVB
_________________
Judyth Vary Baker
Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Dr Truth
You're getting to be as big a joke as Dankbaar's "forum", Martin.
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:cs36os$8...@dispatch.concentric.net...
j
Dr Truth wrote:
> "Let's twist again, like we did last summer.........."
> You're getting to be as big a joke as Dankbaar's "forum", Martin.
anyone who wants to "twist" with Mr. Vernon needs to be aware of what
he has posted at Mr. Dankbaar's forum... it is a compliment for Martin
Shackelford to be maligned by a fellow such as this. ==j==
Mr. Vernon's most recent posts at Jfk Murder Solved:
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:30 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Vernon,
My aren't we complimentary, about my mouth and my brain. I do not lower
myself to respond in kind. I am one of those old fashioned ladies I
suppose, so I will just ignore your insult. You appear to insult
everyone, so why should I take exception?
I vote that you post only here and if you refuse to abide by those
rules, I
trust that Wim has a way to revoke your right to post at all on his
forum.
I am a a criminal defense and juvenile atty. Mr Vernon, I know no law
applicable to rules of the forum. Prior to 10/27 I had never even gone
onto a jfk assassination forum.
But I do know that you have been booted off other forums, right to post
revoked, so there has got to be a means to accomplish such if you
refuse to abide by the most generous offer Wim has made to you: your
own thread.
I have no further comment on this matter.
Dawn
_________________
Dawn Meredith
Back to top
Robert Vernon
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 225
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:54 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote="Dawn Meredith"]Mr Vernon,
My aren't we complimentary, about my mouth and my brain. I do not lower
myself to respond in kind. I am one of those old fashioned ladies I
suppose, so I will just ignore your insult. You appear to insult
everyone, so why should I take exception?
I vote that you post only here and if you refuse to abide by those
rules, I
trust that Wim has a way to revoke your right to post at all on his
forum.
BV: Read my lips......I don't give a damn about this joke of a forum.
I am a a criminal defense and juvenile atty. Mr Vernon, I know no law
applicable to rules of the forum.
BV: And your point is.....?
Prior to 10/27 I had never even gone onto a jfk assassination forum.
BV: I can tell.
But I do know that you have been booted off other forums, right to post
revoked, so there has got to be a means to accomplish such if you
refuse to abide by the most generous offer Wim has made to you: your
own thread.
BV: I was suspended briefly from Lancer because the asshole Dankbaar
provoked me with his lies which I don't not take, particularly from a
criminal like him who has casued me and my famility irreparable harm. I
then took him up on his inviationa now he deletes my posts when I
provide you novice researchers with valid information. That's
censorship and that's bullshit.
I have no further comment on this matter.
BV: Who cares.
Back to top
Jim Harwood
Guest
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 9:23 pm Post subject: Vernon must be
drinking again
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vernon's miscues in his response to Dawn are indicative of two things.
1. He has gone nearly "mad" over the loss of his property to Wim
Dankbaar.
2. He's mixing "drinking and debating" with the members here.
Back to top
Guest
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 9:42 pm Post subject: Re: Vernon must be
drinking again
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Harwood wrote:
Vernon's miscues in his response to Dawn are indicative of two things.
1. He has gone nearly "mad" over the loss of his property to Wim
Dankbaar.
2. He's mixing "drinking and debating" with the members here.
Another lying son of a bitch, Jim Harwood. Dankbaar's pee buddy
plus.....they probably fondle each other.
Back to top
========================================================
> a prince of a fellow! ==j===
========================================================
j
Dr Truth wrote:
> "Let's twist again, like we did last summer.........."
> You're getting to be as big a joke as Dankbaar's "forum", Martin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Vernon,
Dawn
_________________
Dawn Meredith
Back to top
Robert Vernon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BV: I can tell.
BV: Who cares.
Back to top
Jim Harwood
Guest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to top
Guest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to top
Dr Truth
"j" <electl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105592147.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dr Truth
"j" <electl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105593368....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin