Bill Kelly catches a Judyth gaffe
Dave Reitzes
<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
William Kelly
Yesterday, 10:58 AM Post #3
I have another problem with Judyth Baker.
In her article published in Europe and translated in a John Gillespie
post, Judyth claims to have seen the James Bond movie From Russia With
Love with Oswald, ostensibly in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.
However, the film did not make its New York USA debute until April 1964,
though it was released in London in October 1963, in Oswald's lifetime.
<QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
Subject: Judyth's Dutch account -- complete
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 05:53:54 GMT
From: john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
Organization: Marquette University
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Followup-To: alt.assassination.jfk
OK, I figured out how to get the entire page translated:
<Quote on>
The Green citizen of amsterdam | 21 June 2003
«An American hero»
At theories over the murder of president Kennedy is for forty years no
flaw. Judyth Vary Bake, notwithstanding that own say the last lover of the
alleged murderer Borrow Harvey Oswald, joins for that now the her at. The
story becomes town lunatic.
through René Zwaap
[...]
JUdyth Vary Bake :
{...]
«LEe never was a spy, and has also something differently than a spy want
to be. Its favorite films were James Federation-films. I remind myself yet
good that we together From Russia With Praise saw. He not felt self an
American James Federation, and wrongly. Are so-called communist sympathies
were all fabrications, a façade behind which he be undercoveroperaties
could export. As directed he in New Orleans the local division of the
Committee Fair Play for Cuba on, of which he the only member was. The
address on the propaganda material for that organization — that directed
was on the normaliseren of the American-Cuban relations — stood please
note on the office by Guy Bannister.
<QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
From Russia with Love (1963)
Overview
Director:Terence Young
Writers:Ian Fleming (novel)
Johanna Harwood (adaptation)
more
Release Date: 27 May 1964 (USA)
<QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
Oswald may have READ the orignal "From Russia with Love" novel,
however:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22from+russia+with+love%22+oswald
Dave
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:879e6a47-3dcb-470d...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
James Bond film they saw with another she later saw.
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:879e6a47-3dcb-470d...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
tims...@gmail.com
Well I never! Yet ANOTHER hole in Baker's story!
LOL, this thing is a complete and utter fiasco...
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On May 19, 2:32 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=c9fa75cde238e52c3b65a8c...
>
> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
>
> William Kelly
>
> Yesterday, 10:58 AM Post #3
>
> I have another problem with Judyth Baker.
>
> In her article published in Europe and translated in a John Gillespie
> post, Judyth claims to have seen the James Bond movie From Russia With
> Love with Oswald, ostensibly in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.
>
> However, the film did not make its New York USA debute until April 1964,
> though it was released in London in October 1963, in Oswald's lifetime.
>
> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>
> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Judyth's Dutch account -- complete
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 05:53:54 GMT
> From: john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22...
>
> Dave
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> Even with a decent translation, it would seem clear that she confused the
> James Bond film they saw with another she later saw.
>
> Martin
How could that be? She could remember 35-year-old telephone
conversations verbatim. Well, there was that one slip-up where she
quoted Oswald as saying they would link up at a "fine hotel" in Cancun
after he finished polishing off JFK. You never did explain that one
away altho you tried blaming her ex-agent (among others) and later had
to eat your words in a humiliating apology. (Lurkers, see
"Clarification, Correction and Retraction..." in the Google archives.
JGL
>
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:879e6a47-3dcb-470d...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=c9fa75cde238e52c3b65a8c...
>
> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
>
> William Kelly
>
> Yesterday, 10:58 AM Post #3
>
> I have another problem with Judyth Baker.
>
> In her article published in Europe and translated in a John Gillespie
> post, Judyth claims to have seen the James Bond movie From Russia With
> Love with Oswald, ostensibly in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.
>
> However, the film did not make its New York USA debute until April 1964,
> though it was released in London in October 1963, in Oswald's lifetime.
>
> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>
> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Judyth's Dutch account -- complete
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 05:53:54 GMT
> From: john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22...
>
> Dave
Michael O'Dell
that it did, only if you exclude other explanations. And that's a common
theme with your approach to Judyth. You have consistently missed or avoided
alternative explanations.
In this case, it's also possible that she wanted to add this little element
to her story and she looked up the release date of "From Russia With Love",
found 1963 (because it had been released in Europe then), and included it
not realizing it hadn't been released in the USA.
Both explanations are possible.
Michael
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:XgaYj.2127$l97....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
> address on the propaganda material for that organization - that directed
> was on the normaliseren of the American-Cuban relations - stood please
paul seaton
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:XgaYj.2127$l97....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
> James Bond film they saw with another she later saw.
I recall reading ( in Pierre Clostermann's book) about (supposed) Free
French guys arriving in London after the fall of France in WW2 , trying to
get themselves inserted into De Gaulle's circle, the RAF , etc etc. The
worry was that some of them were nazi agents, peddling superficially
well-rehearsed cover stories.
They were all interviewed in a very friendly manner, asked a very long
series of superficially trivial questions about their education, their
upbringing, who they knew, the geography of Paris, where they took their
girl friends, which newsagent they bought their Gauloises at, what date thay
had seen what films at what cinema, etc etc.
It was with slip ups on this kind of trivial detail - as in seeing a movie
the year before it was released - that allowed the hopeful 'insertions' to
be weeded out.
Given LHOs history in the USSR , it would seem pretty well certain that - if
her claims were true - Judy would vividly remember 'from Russia' , not to
mention ( given her claims ) 'with love'. But then one might speculate that
she chose to claim to have seen that film with him for exactly that reason -
the bosom heaving romantic resonance of "From Russia With Love". How
poignant ...
WW2, she would have been immediately taken out to the courtyard & shot :-)
"[S]he chose badly" as the knight said in the Indiana Jones movie.
paul s
> address on the propaganda material for that organization - that directed
> was on the normaliseren of the American-Cuban relations - stood please
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>A great translation, Dave, on which I'm sure we'll all rely. :-)
It's better than your "transcript" of the recording made of Mary
Ferrell.
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Even with a decent translation, it would seem clear that she confused the
>James Bond film they saw with another she later saw.
Alternatives always seem clear to you when something Judyth said
crashes headlong into fact.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>Well, no. Sure, that might be what happened. But to say it "seems clear"
>that it did, only if you exclude other explanations. And that's a common
>theme with your approach to Judyth. You have consistently missed or avoided
>alternative explanations.
>
>In this case, it's also possible that she wanted to add this little element
>to her story and she looked up the release date of "From Russia With Love",
>found 1963 (because it had been released in Europe then), and included it
>not realizing it hadn't been released in the USA.
>
>Both explanations are possible.
>
>Michael
This reminds me of the letter to President Kennedy thing....common
knowledge that he was elected in 1960 ...forgetting he wasn't elected
until November and didn't become president until 1961 .... priceless.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:XgaYj.2127$l97....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>> Even with a decent translation, it would seem clear that she confused the
>> James Bond film they saw with another she later saw.
>
>
>
>I recall reading ( in Pierre Clostermann's book) about (supposed) Free
>French guys arriving in London after the fall of France in WW2 , trying to
>get themselves inserted into De Gaulle's circle, the RAF , etc etc. The
>worry was that some of them were nazi agents, peddling superficially
>well-rehearsed cover stories.
>They were all interviewed in a very friendly manner, asked a very long
>series of superficially trivial questions about their education, their
>upbringing, who they knew, the geography of Paris, where they took their
>girl friends, which newsagent they bought their Gauloises at, what date thay
>had seen what films at what cinema, etc etc.
>
>It was with slip ups on this kind of trivial detail - as in seeing a movie
>the year before it was released - that allowed the hopeful 'insertions' to
>be weeded out.
Like being told to write to President Kennedy in May 1960. :-)
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Even with a decent translation, it would seem clear that she confused the
> James Bond film they saw with another she later saw.
>
> Martin
>
>
> news:879e6a47-3dcb-470d...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=c9fa75cde238e52c3b65a8c...
>
>
> William Kelly
>
> Yesterday, 10:58 AM Post #3
>
> I have another problem with Judyth Baker.
>
> In her article published in Europe and translated in a John Gillespie
> post, Judyth claims to have seen the James Bond movie From Russia With
> Love with Oswald, ostensibly in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.
>
> However, the film did not make its New York USA debute until April 1964,
> though it was released in London in October 1963, in Oswald's lifetime.
>
> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>
> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Judyth's Dutch account -- complete
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 05:53:54 GMT
>
> Dave
There is a conflict in US release dates already -- Bill Kelly says
April, the info here says May. Surely we can attribute a sinister
interpretation to that discrepancy?
Martin Shackelford
other.
Martin
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a92ec958-00d9-459a...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6475c856-21cc-4127...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
accurately reported.
To call Dave's pitiful mess "better" shows your partisanship, to say the
least, Barb. The claim is just silly.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:q8e434ts8rb4dqaod...@4ax.com...
>>address on the propaganda material for that organization - that directed
>>was on the normaliseren of the American-Cuban relations - stood please
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>My transcript is 100% accurate. Every word that could be made out was
>accurately reported.
Oh ... that's not what you just said in another post. You said you
only included the portions relating to the e-mail. And if your
transcipt reports "every word that could be made out" on even just
that issue ... it's pretty dang worthless.
Martin Shackelford
and you folks automatically call every lapse "another Judyth lie."
Martin
"Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4831af0a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> Just like a dog with an old bone.
>
> Martin
Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less
fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you
humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05,
under threat of legal action:
After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post which
contained inaccurate information relating to one of Judyth's former
agents, Peter Cox. Mr. Cox has indicated to me that he in no way
misrepresented matters to Judyth, thus it would be incorrect to say she
was "snookered" by him. He has also indicated that he did not "rewrite"
her manuscript. As I am unable to get specifics on this claim, I retract
it as well. Howard mentioned Mr. Cox's reference to "co-author credit,"
but my comments beyond that were speculative only, and I retract them.
Judyth's firing of him, therefore, was not due to his re-writing the
manuscript, as that didn't occur, and therefore there was no "agent's
messed-up version." Due to the confusion relating to these matters, I
won't discuss them further on the newsgroup, so followup questions will be
pointless.
Martin
Can't remember ever seeing anything like that on line before. Amazing
you're still here.
JGL
Michael O'Dell
I accepted that your explanation was a possible one. I expressed that
clearly. I didn't say it was a lie.
But I also pointed out that it isn't the only possible one. You seem
unable to even perceive any explanations that involve Judyth lying.
Whether or not you believe she has, *it's possible*. Until you can see
that you are not able to make a reasoned judgement about it.
Michael
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jItYj.21$ui...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
Steve Thomas
> On May 20, 1:55 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Just like a dog with an old bone.
>
> > Martin
>
> Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less
> fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you
> humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05,
> under threat of legal action:
>
> After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post which
> contained inaccurate information
And just who gave Shackelford this inaccurate information? Why has
Martin never come clean on where the rumor started? Who was the first
to point the finger at the agent?
Martin Shackelford
that was Reitzes' department, Barb.
My initial post at the time included only the relevant portions of the
transcript--the rest was a variety of personal conversation, conversation
with the nurse, etc.
The transcript itself was 100% accurate, everything that could be made out
from the tape. That applies to the section I posted. There is no
contradiction.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:k6g634tlpd5i4vbcf...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>You are attempting to create another nonexistent contradiction. I thought
>that was Reitzes' department, Barb.
>
>My initial post at the time included only the relevant portions of the
>transcript--the rest was a variety of personal conversation, conversation
>with the nurse, etc.
Below you said, "My transcript is 100% accurate. Every word that could
be made out was accurately reported."
Make up your mind. "reported" certainly implies you posted all of it.
Since you make the claim about the intent of the recorder being about
Mary's well being, then it would seem obvious to most that that part
of the tape should be "reported."
Martin Shackelford
be the topic of any further posts on my part.
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5af3fa84-3eef-45a6...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
jfk...@gmail.com
> No, that's not the difference at all.
>
> I accepted that your explanation was a possible one. I expressed that
> clearly. I didn't say it was a lie.
>
> But I also pointed out that it isn't the only possible one. You seem
> unable to even perceive any explanations that involve Judyth lying.
> Whether or not you believe she has, *it's possible*. Until you can see
> that you are not able to make a reasoned judgement about it.
>
> Michael
>
>
> news:jItYj.21$ui...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> > The difference is that I accept that memories can be less than accurate,
> > and you folks automatically call every lapse "another Judyth lie."
>
> > Martin
>
> > "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:4831af0a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >> Well, no. Sure, that might be what happened. But to say it "seems
> >> clear" that it did, only if you exclude other explanations. And that's a
> >> common theme with your approach to Judyth. You have consistently missed
> >> or avoided alternative explanations.
>
> >> In this case, it's also possible that she wanted to add this little
> >> element to her story and she looked up the release date of "From Russia
> >> With Love", found 1963 (because it had been released in Europe then), and
> >> included it not realizing it hadn't been released in the USA.
>
> >> Both explanations are possible.
>
> >> Michael
>
> >>news:XgaYj.2127$l97....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
> >>> Even with a decent translation, it would seem clear that she confused
> >>> the
> >>> James Bond film they saw with another she later saw.
>
> >>> Martin
>
> >>>news:879e6a47-3dcb-470d...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=c9fa75cde238e52c3b65a8c...
>
> >>> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
>
> >>> William Kelly
>
> >>> Yesterday, 10:58 AM Post #3
>
> >>> I have another problem with Judyth Baker.
>
> >>> In her article published in Europe and translated in a John Gillespie
> >>> post, Judyth claims to have seen the James Bond movie From Russia With
> >>> Love with Oswald, ostensibly in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.
>
> >>> However, the film did not make its New York USA debute until April 1964,
> >>> though it was released in London in October 1963, in Oswald's lifetime.
>
> >>> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>
> >>> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
>
> >>> Subject: Judyth's Dutch account -- complete
> >>> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 05:53:54 GMT
>
> >>> Dave
You seem unable to consider any alternatives that do not include
Judyth lying.
Michael O'Dell
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c159c88-62fb-4a2e...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
========
Simply not true Pam. The very post you are replying to proves otherwise.
Try reading it for meaning instead of verbal games.
Michael
Steve Thomas
wrote:
> If you read the correction, Steve, you know that I said the issue would not
> be the topic of any further posts on my part.
I didnt expect you to expose Judyth to another lie.
>
> Martin
>
> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > JGL- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> If you read the correction, Steve, you know that I said the issue would not
> be the topic of any further posts on my part.
>
> Martin
Well, let's lay out the possibilities:
1. Judyth is Martin's source and he's covering for her.
2. Some other unreliable individual is Martin's source and he's
covering for him/her.
3. Martin made up the Cox allegation out of thin air.
Am I overlooking any possibilities?
> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
Dave
Martin Shackelford
information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with
an expensive phony lawsuit.
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2f1373d2-1743-44d7...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 22, 5:00?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> If you read the correction, Steve, you know that I said the issue would
> not
> be the topic of any further posts on my part.
>
> Martin
Well, let's lay out the possibilities:
1. Judyth is Martin's source and he's covering for her.
2. Some other unreliable individual is Martin's source and he's
covering for him/her.
3. Martin made up the Cox allegation out of thin air.
Am I overlooking any possibilities?
> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5af3fa84-3eef-45a6...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 21, 7:36 am, JLeyden...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > On May 20, 1:55 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Just like a dog with an old bone.
>
> > > Martin
>
> > Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less
> > fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you
> > humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05,
> > under threat of legal action:
>
> > After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post which
> > contained inaccurate information
>
> ? ?And just who gave Shackelford this inaccurate information? Why has
Steve Thomas
> On May 22, 5:00�pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > If you read the correction, Steve, you know that I said the issue would not
> > be the topic of any further posts on my part.
>
> > Martin
>
> Well, let's lay out the possibilities:
>
> 1. Judyth is Martin's source and he's covering for her.
>
> 2. Some other unreliable individual is Martin's source and he's
> covering for him/her.
>
> 3. Martin made up the Cox allegation out of thin air.
>
> Am I overlooking any possibilities?
Id say your possibilities are more probable than Martins 50-50 on
the Gargoyle ring.
> Dave- Hide quoted text -
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Martin,
*From Russia With Love*?? Your adherence to Baker's implausible
stories is quite endearing, Martin, though it looks rather naive from
time to time.
The woman is a liar, Martin. Has she tried selling you the Brooklyn
Bridge yet?
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On May 20, 3:54 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> It's good to know that you've never confused films from a series with each
> other.
>
> Martin
>
> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the
> information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with
> an expensive phony lawsuit.
>
> Martin
So you're now saying that your retraction was untruthful?
You're retracting your retraction?
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
Dave
Anthony Marsh
> TOP POST
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> *From Russia With Love*?? Your adherence to Baker's implausible
> stories is quite endearing, Martin, though it looks rather naive from
> time to time.
>
> The woman is a liar, Martin. Has she tried selling you the Brooklyn
> Bridge yet?
>
You cite an interesting principle, that once we know that someone lied
about one thing we should never believe anything they say. Yet you don't
apply that same principle to the WC or to Bugliosi, both known liars.
paul seaton
On May 24, 8:00�pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the
> information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with
> an expensive phony lawsuit.
>
> Martin
DR says : So you're now saying that your retraction was untruthful?
PS says :Dave : Pam has taught us that concepts such as 'truth' &
'falsehood' are very unhelpful, here, so, Martin's use of the unhelpful
word "accurate" is surprising . (I'm surprised that Martin is still being
so wontonly Contra-Pamelonian about this.)
Dave Reitzes
> information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with
> an expensive phony lawsuit.
>
> Martin
>
Dave
Martin Shackelford
As I was speaking hypothetically, your interpretation is without basis.
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:367a6e82-28d2-4698...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 24, 8:00?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
William Yates
> On May 24, 8:00�pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the
>> information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with
>> an expensive phony lawsuit.
>>
>> Martin
Isn't this a "further post" on this issue that you said you weren't
going to do?
Steve Thomas
wrote:
> Dave Reitzes wrote:
> > On May 24, 8:00�pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >> One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the
> >> information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with
> >> an expensive phony lawsuit.
>
> >> Martin
>
> Isn't this a "further post" on this issue that you said you weren't
> going to do?
>
The only thing he won't answer is who told him the bogus info about
Mr Cox.
> >http://www.jfk-online.com/judythmenu.html- Hide quoted text -
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> Your interpretations are always entertaining, Dave.
> As I was speaking hypothetically, your interpretation is without basis.
>
> Martin
Why don't you tell us what your interpretation is?
And, of course, why don't you answer the question you have repeatedly been
asked: who gave you the "inaccurate" information about Peter Cox?
Hypothetically speaking. \:^)
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:00a5fb97-9b1b-4842...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 29, 10:04?am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
I spoke to the narrow position of 'believing' or 'disbelieving' a
witness rather than weighing and evaluating their statements. I guess
that was too complicated for you.
jfk...@gmail.com
> <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Just what exactly are you attempting to say then?
paul seaton
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7de01af3-a0ea-4317...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
##PS says : Weigh them ??? With scales ?? OK they wiegh 0.05 grams , at
least, they do printed on medium wieght paper. Now, ok I will evaluate them.
( Pause) OK I took them to the pawn shop & the guy there told me they had no
value whatever. Wouldn't give me a penny.
So, having weighed & evaluated, I really don't see that I am better off than
before.
I still don't know whether what are saying is TRUE or FALSE, Pam . IE I
don't know whether these things really happened or if they are just making
them up out of thin air.
Confidentially, I think you are so wrapped up in your own special brand of
gloopy metaphorical nice-speak that you are not even aware yourself that
about 98% of your sentences are actually , strictly speaking, meaningless.
How can I judge the 'value' of a statement, for eg, WITHOUT KNOWING IF IT'S
TRUE OR NOT ????
Obviously, if it's false, it has no value.
There, Pam, is the rub, as someone once said. I know you are trying to
abolish the whole nasty concept of LYING , but avoiding the word won't do
away with the practice anymore than not saying 'spastic' keeps people out of
wheelchairs. Shit happens. Covering it with a nice decorative layer of
treacle & cream doesn't stop it being ..... basically...... shit, pam.
There;s just no other word for it.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"William Yates" <william_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:XridnR1VsqpM06PV...@earthlink.com...
Dave Reitzes wrote:
> On May 24, 8:00?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
Martin Shackelford
and
I haven't. Yet you continue to pretend that I should do exactly that.
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6a04f0b3-1eb4-4fe2...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 29, 9:06 pm, William Yates <william_yates...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Dave Reitzes wrote:
> > On May 24, 8:00?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
Barb Junkkarinen
>On May 25, 6:35 pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
>wrote:
>> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d3686272-a2e3-4e81...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 24, 8:00?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the
>> > information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with
>> > an expensive phony lawsuit.
>>
>> > Martin
>>
>> DR says : So you're now saying that your retraction was untruthful?
>>
>> PS says :Dave : Pam has taught us that concepts such as 'truth' &
>> 'falsehood' are very unhelpful, here, so, Martin's use of the unhelpful
>> word "accurate" is surprising . (I'm surprised that Martin is still being
>> so wontonly Contra-Pamelonian about this.)
>
>I spoke to the narrow position of 'believing' or 'disbelieving' a
>witness rather than weighing and evaluating their statements. I guess
>that was too complicated for you.
There's nothing complicated ... for most ... about weighing and
evaluating evidence to then be able to come to a conclusion about
whether something should or should not believed. That's how it is
done, Pamela ... save for those, like you, who glom on to anything
that supports your belief and react with knee jerk speed against
anything that does not.
And that is not "complicated" to see either.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
><jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7de01af3-a0ea-4317...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>On May 25, 6:35 pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
>wrote:
>> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d3686272-a2e3-4e81...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 24, 8:00?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
I love "gloopy." <g>
>How can I judge the 'value' of a statement, for eg, WITHOUT KNOWING IF IT'S
>TRUE OR NOT ????
Exactly.
>Obviously, if it's false, it has no value.
>There, Pam, is the rub, as someone once said. I know you are trying to
>abolish the whole nasty concept of LYING , but avoiding the word won't do
>away with the practice anymore than not saying 'spastic' keeps people out of
>wheelchairs. Shit happens. Covering it with a nice decorative layer of
>treacle & cream doesn't stop it being ..... basically...... shit, pam.
>There;s just no other word for it.
Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Steve Thomas
wrote:
> I said at the time I wouldn't be posting further information on the matter,
> and
> I haven't. Yet you continue to pretend that I should do exactly that.
You continue to think people believe you, they dont.
>
> Martin
> > >http://www.jfk-online.com/judythmenu.html-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6585b38b-ba70-4b61...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
jfk...@gmail.com
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=c9fa75cde238e52c3b65a8c...
>
> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
>
> William Kelly
>
> Yesterday, 10:58 AM Post #3
>
> I have another problem withJudythBaker.
>
> In her article published in Europe and translated in a John Gillespie
> Love with Oswald, ostensibly in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.
>
> However, the film did not make its New York USA debute until April 1964,
> though it was released in London in October 1963, in Oswald's lifetime.
>
> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>
> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 05:53:54 GMT
> From: john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
> Organization: Marquette University
> Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
> Followup-To: alt.assassination.jfk
>
> OK, I figured out how to get the entire page translated:
>
> <Quote on>
> The Green citizen of amsterdam | 21 June 2003
>
> «An American hero»
>
> At theories over the murder of president Kennedy is for forty years no
> alleged murderer Borrow Harvey Oswald, joins for that now the her at. The
> story becomes town lunatic.
>
> through René Zwaap
>
> [...]
>
>
> {...]
>
> «LEe never was a spy, and has also something differently than a spy want
> to be. Its favorite films were James Federation-films. I remind myself yet
> good that we together From Russia With Praise saw. He not felt self an
> American James Federation, and wrongly. Are so-called communist sympathies
> were all fabrications, a façade behind which he be undercoveroperaties
> could export. As directed he in New Orleans the local division of the
> Committee Fair Play for Cuba on, of which he the only member was. The
> was on the normaliseren of the American-Cuban relations — stood please
> note on the office by Guy Bannister.
>
> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>
> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
>
> From Russia with Love (1963)
>
> Overview
> Director:Terence Young
>
> Writers:Ian Fleming (novel)
> Johanna Harwood (adaptation)
> more
> Release Date: 27 May 1964 (USA)
>
> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>
> Oswald may have READ the orignal "From Russia with Love" novel,
> however:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22...
>
> Dave
Judyth and Lee looked forward to seeing From Russia With Love. They saw
Dr No together. The Dutch translation was incorrect.
paul seaton
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f5f798c9-587a-4e2e...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
[..]
> Judyth and Lee looked forward to seeing From Russia With Love. They saw
> Dr No together. The Dutch translation was incorrect.
Wow. The dutch translation was by a robot wasn't it ? One of those
'online' things ? And it translated From Russia With Love as Dr No ??
That's one hell of a machine they got there.
Dave Reitzes
Your source for this?
No, wait. Let me guess.
Dave \:^)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
And you know this because you speak Dutch?
Or because Judyth reported one thing one place ....and another
elsewhere. Pretty typical of Judyth. Apparently lost on you.
jfk...@gmail.com
You try to sandbag Judyth, and when you realize you were mistaken,
blame it on her? LOL
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Wonder how they'd translate 'remove foot from mouth'?
paul seaton
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6db30ce7-4d09-4e71...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
"Ik herinner me nog goed dat we samen From Russia With Love hebben gezien"
Literally, word for word, this is " I remember me still good that we
together From Russia With Love have seen"
'remove foot from mouth' translates literally as : "verwijderen voet uit
mond"
Verwijderen voet uit mond, Pam.
Michael O'Dell
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f5f798c9-587a-4e2e...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
------------------
What specifically was the error? "Dr. No" to "From Russia With Love" is not
a translation error.
This statement of fact is based on what? Did you get another translation?
Michael
paul seaton
===========
PS says :
Google translates it as :
"I remember well that we together From Russia With Love have seen."
Yahoo as:
"I remind myself still well that we together From Russia With have seen
Love. "
World Lingo as:
"I remind myself still well that we together From Russia With have seen
Love"
Here's the original dutch :
"Ik herinner me nog goed dat we samen From Russia With Love hebben gezien"
"hebben gezien" translates as " HAVE SEEN" not 'looked forward to seeing",
Pam, as is pretty obvious if you just say it to yourself.
hebben gezien = "have seen" according to Google Translate, World Lingo,
Yahoo Babel Fish,
jfk...@gmail.com
> <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Hope to see, not 'saw'.
Michael O'Dell
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0cf65365-6693-4551...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
---------------------
What is your source?
Michael
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Noy according to the translation Paul got and provided.
And your source is??
Dave Reitzes
I'd be perfectly happy to admit I was mistaken, Pam, just as soon as
you produce some evidence.
Do you have any?
Dave
tims...@gmail.com
Goes to credibility, Marsh. Baker has none. Or do you now believe her
account, LOL! Speaking of credibility...
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On May 26, 5:23 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> timst...@gmail.com wrote:
> > TOP POST
>
> > Hi Martin,
>
> > *From Russia With Love*?? Your adherence to Baker's implausible
> > stories is quite endearing, Martin, though it looks rather naive from
> > time to time.
>
> > The woman is a liar, Martin. Has she tried selling you the Brooklyn
> > Bridge yet?
>
> You cite an interesting principle, that once we know that someone lied
> about one thing we should never believe anything they say. Yet you don't
> apply that same principle to the WC or to Bugliosi, both known liars.
>
>
>
> > Concerned Regards,
>
> > Tim Brennan
> > Sydney, Australia
> > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> > On May 20, 3:54 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >> It's good to know that you've never confused films from a series with each
> >> other.
>
> >> Martin
>
> >> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:a92ec958-00d9-459a...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >> TOP POST
>
> >> Well I never! Yet ANOTHER hole in Baker's story!
>
> >> LOL, this thing is a complete and utter fiasco...
>
> >> Regards,
>
> >> Tim Brennan
> >> Sydney, Australia
> >> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> >> On May 19, 2:32 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=c9fa75cde238e52c3b65a8c...
> >>> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
> >>> William Kelly
> >>> Yesterday, 10:58 AM Post #3
> >>> I have another problem with Judyth Baker.
> >>> In her article published in Europe and translated in a John Gillespie
> >>> post, Judyth claims to have seen the James Bond movie From Russia With
> >>> Love with Oswald, ostensibly in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.
> >>> However, the film did not make its New York USA debute until April 1964,
> >>> though it was released in London in October 1963, in Oswald's lifetime.
> >>> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
> >>> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
> >>> Subject: Judyth's Dutch account -- complete
> >>> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 05:53:54 GMT
> >>> From: john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
> >>> Organization: Marquette University
> >>> Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
> >>> Followup-To: alt.assassination.jfk
> >>> OK, I figured out how to get the entire page translated:
> >>> <Quote on>
> >>> The Green citizen of amsterdam | 21 June 2003
> >>> «An American hero»
> >>> At theories over the murder of president Kennedy is for forty years no
> >>> flaw. Judyth Vary Bake, notwithstanding that own say the last lover of the
> >>> alleged murderer Borrow Harvey Oswald, joins for that now the her at. The
> >>> story becomes town lunatic.
> >>> through René Zwaap
> >>> [...]
> >>> JUdyth Vary Bake :
> >>> {...]
> >>> «LEe never was a spy, and has also something differently than a spy want
> >>> to be. Its favorite films were James Federation-films. I remind myself yet
> >>> good that we together From Russia With Praise saw. He not felt self an
> >>> American James Federation, and wrongly. Are so-called communist sympathies
> >>> were all fabrications, a façade behind which he be undercoveroperaties
> >>> could export. As directed he in New Orleans the local division of the
> >>> Committee Fair Play for Cuba on, of which he the only member was. The
> >>> address on the propaganda material for that organization — that directed
> >>> was on the normaliseren of the American-Cuban relations — stood please
> >>> note on the office by Guy Bannister.
> >>> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
> >>> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
> >>> From Russia with Love (1963)
> >>> Overview
> >>> Director:Terence Young
> >>> Writers:Ian Fleming (novel)
> >>> Johanna Harwood (adaptation)
> >>> more
> >>> Release Date: 27 May 1964 (USA)
> >>> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
> >>> Oswald may have READ the orignal "From Russia with Love" novel,
> >>> however:
> >>>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22...
> >>> Dave- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
> TOP POST
>
> Goes to credibility, Marsh. Baker has none. Or do you now believe her
> account, LOL! Speaking of credibility...
>
Ridiculous. Is this your lame attempt at character assassination by the
guilt by association technique? My position remains that I do not
believe about 87% of her story. How you translate that into my believing
her, you'd have to ask a specialist in psychology.
Dave Reitzes
>
> > > No, wait. Let me guess.
>
> > > Dave \:^)
>
> > You try to sandbag Judyth, and when you realize you were mistaken,
> > blame it on her? LOL
>
> I'd be perfectly happy to admit I was mistaken, Pam, just as soon as
> you produce some evidence.
>
> Do you have any?
>
> Dave
I didn't think so.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
> On May 29, 9:06 pm, William Yates <william_yates...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Dave Reitzes wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > >> One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the
> > >> information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with
> > >> an expensive phony lawsuit.
>
> > >> Martin
>
> > Isn't this a "further post" on this issue that you said you weren't
> > going to do?
>
> The only thing he won't answer is who told him the bogus info about
> Mr Cox.
Well, you can't say I didn't give Martin ample opportunity to come clean.
Martin's source of this troublesome misinformation is Judyth Vary Baker;
see for example her JFKresearch Internet forum post of November 15, 2002:
"The 'Cancun' thing has been explained in full...my former literary agent
[Peter Cox] added things to the manuscript, this wasn't, got repeated
somewhere, I have tried to stay out of that forum over there because I
tried to post answers and they would only post a part of it, or they would
not even get posted at all. I have answered in full, over at the other
forum, but all my replied [sic] were ignored. In short, a place on the map
was pointed out to me, today bewteeen [sic] cancun [sic] and belize [sic],
I named the area for my agent, the agent put it in the book."
Now Martin admits that Judyth wrote the material in question:
IOW, Martin's accusing Judyth of lying!
> > >> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:2f1373d2-1743-44d7...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > >> On May 22, 5:00?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> If you read the correction, Steve, you know that I said the issue would
> > >>> not
> > >>> be the topic of any further posts on my part.
> > >>> Martin
> > >> Well, let's lay out the possibilities:
>
> > >> 1. Judyth is Martin'ssourceand he's covering for her.
>
> > >> 2. Some other unreliable individual is Martin'ssourceand he's
jfk...@gmail.com
Making up statements about anyone who doesn't join the Judyth-bashing
party seems to be rampant here.
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Please. The translation into Dutch from English was incorrect.
paul seaton
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:29de40d2-88db-4485...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
##PS says : And you know this how, Pam ?
Michael O'Dell
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:29de40d2-88db-4485...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
=====================
Says who? Document the error.
Michael
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
Hee hee ha ha ho ho! I love your sense of humor, Michael! Pam document
something...that's a knee slapper!
Barb :-)
>
>
jfk...@gmail.com
Yes. From Judyth. It was her interview, remember? Why do you have
to make her the bucket for other people's errors?
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
Why can't you people just acknowledge Pam's words for what they are?
Dave
Michael O'Dell
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:758a47b8-b821-4cf2...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
=================
Can you acknowledge that Judyth would have an interest in explaining away
this problem by claiming a "translation error"?
Michael
Dave Reitzes
Please stop making Judyth the bucket, Paul.
Dave
paul seaton
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:758a47b8-b821-4cf2...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
##PS says : You make heavy weather of things don't you ? You have a source
for 'her interview' in the original english ? Then provide it. If not, what
are you talking about ?
paul seaton
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d659e84f-f474-4480...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
##PS says : - I thought she made a fine looking bucket...
muc...@gmail.com
What error? What is Judyth's claim exactly?
1) That "Dr. No" became "From Russia With Love" in the published
article?
2) That "hoped to see" became "hebben gezien" in the published
article?
3) That "hebben gezien" means "hoped to see"?
4) Something else?
Is there any way of verifying the claim? Have you asked a Dutchman
about #3?
The article is, of course, available on-line:
http://www.groene.nl/2003/25/De_vermeende_Kennedy-moordenaar_en_zijn_laatste_minnares
"Ik herinner me nog goed dat we samen From Russia With Love hebben
gezien."
It seems obvious that "hebben gezien" (Dutch) are the same words as
"haben gesehen" (German), "have seen" (English), "har set" (Danish),
etc.
-Mark
jfk...@gmail.com
You weren't there Michel. Live with it.
Michael O'Dell
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2a26ce74-1046-44a4...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
============
Non-responsive. Does nothing to answer the question.
Do you not understand that you can't rely one someone to validate their
own disputed claims? They can offer an explanation, but that doesn't mean
their explanation is a fact, does it? Verification must come from
elsewhere.
Why would you present Judyth's self-serving explanation as a fact?
Michael
paul seaton
<muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3660d12c-3204-4df9...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
http://www.groene.nl/2003/25/De_vermeende_Kennedy-moordenaar_en_zijn_laatste_minnares
##PS says : I think you are just going to end up confusing Pam with all
this, Mark. We've tried the concepts of 'proof' 'truth' & 'evidence' on
her, but no sign of recognition...
-Mark
Dave Reitzes
Could someone please translate Pamela's posts into English?
Dave
tims...@gmail.com
My position, Marsh, is that an army of *specialists in psychology*
would find your determination to have an opinion on BOTH sides of
every argument around these parts as a very interesting stance, Marsh,
a very interesting stance indeed...
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Anthony Marsh
> On May 19, 12:31 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> Even with a decent translation, it would seem clear that she confused the
>> James Bond film they saw with another she later saw.
>>
>> Martin
>
> How could that be? She could remember 35-year-old telephone
> conversations verbatim. Well, there was that one slip-up where she
> quoted Oswald as saying they would link up at a "fine hotel" in Cancun
She did not say that. That fiction comes from Team McAdams.
> after he finished polishing off JFK. You never did explain that one
> away altho you tried blaming her ex-agent (among others) and later had
> to eat your words in a humiliating apology. (Lurkers, see
> "Clarification, Correction and Retraction..." in the Google archives.
>
So, if you tell people to Google it, that means you are running away?
> JGL
>> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:879e6a47-3dcb-470d...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=c9fa75cde238e52c3b65a8c...
Steve Thomas
> JLeyden...@aol.com wrote:
> > On May 19, 12:31 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Even with a decent translation, it would seem clear that she confused the
> >> James Bond film they saw with another she later saw.
>
> >> Martin
>
> > How could that be? She could remember 35-year-old telephone
> > conversations verbatim. Well, there was that one slip-up where she
> > quoted Oswald as saying they would link up at a "fine hotel" in Cancun
>
> She did not say that. That fiction comes from Team McAdams.
Well the quote is "you'll go to Cancun" "you'll stay in a fine hotel"
so i dont know what that means to you, but to the rest of the world Judyth
meant fine hotel in cancun.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 4, 10:03 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> JLeyden...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On May 19, 12:31 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Even with a decent translation, it would seem clear that she confused the
>>>> James Bond film they saw with another she later saw.
>>>> Martin
>>> How could that be? She could remember 35-year-old telephone
>>> conversations verbatim. Well, there was that one slip-up where she
>>> quoted Oswald as saying they would link up at a "fine hotel" in Cancun
>> She did not say that. That fiction comes from Team McAdams.
>
>
>
> Well the quote is "you'll go to Cancun" "you'll stay in a fine hotel"
> so i dont know what that means to you, but to the rest of the world Judyth
> meant fine hotel in cancun.
>
No.
paul seaton
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mP2dnYIS0sArzQrV...@comcast.com...
Steve Thomas wrote:
> On Aug 4, 10:03 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> JLeyden...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On May 19, 12:31 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Even with a decent translation, it would seem clear that she confused
>>>> the
>>>> James Bond film they saw with another she later saw.
>>>> Martin
>>> How could that be? She could remember 35-year-old telephone
>>> conversations verbatim. Well, there was that one slip-up where she
>>> quoted Oswald as saying they would link up at a "fine hotel" in Cancun
>> She did not say that. That fiction comes from Team McAdams.
>
>
>
> Well the quote is "you'll go to Cancun" "you'll stay in a fine hotel"
> so i dont know what that means to you, but to the rest of the world Judyth
> meant fine hotel in cancun.
>
No.
yes
jfk...@gmail.com
'Bucket' is jargon for someone who gets dumped on. What term would
you understand?