Judyth Baker and the Paul Hoch Ratio test
John McAdams
At the 1993 Midwest Conference Paul Hoch presented a very interesting
talk. I saw it, and Marquette's library has the tapes. I think Dave
Starks would *still* sell the tapes to anyone who wants them.
One of his observations was:
<quote on>
"Anyone who spends time in the FBI files develops his own filters
for detecting probable junk.... I suspect that a useful measure of
the plausibility of an allegation could be derived from the percentage
of well-known names. If a source claims to have met with David
Ferrie, Allen Dulles, and Fidel Castro in Jack Ruby's nightclub, I'll
go on to the next document. Any post-Garrison story with Clay Shaw in
it starts with a heavy burden of skepticism to overcome. I now put
Roscoe White in the same category."
<quote off>
It seems that Judyth fails this test.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
HvK
not just wait, rather than giving the distinct impression of running
scared?
Karl Vissers
>All this preemptive stuff doesn't reflect too well on the LN brigade : why
>not just wait, rather than giving the distinct impression of running
>scared?
>
Hi HvK
I totally agree with you. As far as I know Lifton is the only one that has
talked to Judyth and he has never looked at the evidence that she has to back
up her claim. I have also be told that Mr Lifton didn't really giver Judyth a
very good interview. All he was interested in was her opinion of his book. If
people will wait just a little longer they will see the assassination in a
different light. The truth has long be suspected but now all the real players
will be brought out. I know that most of the people on this NG will give what I
have to say much respect but I will still ask in Judyth's behalf that she be
given the benefit of the doubt.
viking8350
Clark Wilkins
HvK <E...@bphil.org> wrote in message news:4a06a0...@bphil.org...
> All this preemptive stuff doesn't reflect too well on the LN brigade : why
> not just wait, rather than giving the distinct impression of running
> scared?
>
>
Ahh! You do exist! Martin Shackleford and I occassionally exchange e-mails
and that's how I learned about you. How, when, will someone like me get to
hear your story?
Clark Wilkins
JudyandJFK
>From: vikin...@aol.com (Karl Vissers)
>Date: 10/1/00 12:30 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20001001133032...@ng-ce1.aol.com>
>
>>From: HvK E...@bphil.org
>
>>All this preemptive stuff doesn't reflect too well on the LN brigade : why
>>not just wait, rather than giving the distinct impression of running
>>scared?
>>
>
>
>I totally agree with you. As far as I know Lifton is the only one that has
>talked to Judyth and he has never looked at the evidence that she has to back
>up her claim. I have also be told that Mr Lifton didn't really giver Judyth a
>very good interview. All he was interested in was her opinion of his book. If
>people will wait just a little longer they will see the assassination in a
>different light. The truth has long be suspected but now all the real players
>will be brought out. I know that most of the people on this NG will give what
>I
>have to say much respect but I will still ask in Judyth's behalf that she be
>given the benefit of the doubt.
>
>viking8350
Hi Karl,
I hope you think I do respect you, as I do. I will admit that Martin has
been one of the initial CTers that I have always respected. My response to
Lifton's report was before I grasp what what really going on. I will be
waiting to see what really happens, but hope you and Martin understand
that at this time it will take "semen on a dress" to prove.
But I do question what safe guards have been taken to protect her. If she
really knew of the conspiracy would she not still be held criminally
liable? I know there is no time limitation on murder, is there for
conspiracy or preknowledge??
Judy
stuart wexler
The hypocrisy is showing on this matter as much as it does with Posner. You
would never apply the Paul Hoch ratio test to a soon-to-be pro-LN account if
your only source for the "big names" that are supposedly in the story you
know nothing about first-hand is
1) Someone has a clear personal and financial stake in discrediting the
story
2) Someone who you have disagreed with on virtually everything in the past
3) Someone who has argued 2 of the 3 Holy-Trinity-Of-JFK-Tales: those being
Z-film and body-alteration. Granted, he has helped to debunk the 3rd member
of the Holy Trinity, or should I call it unholy, that being the
Oswald-Double/Twin theory.
There is no way on Earth you would accept that if someone came out and said
they had found a witness who had gotten access to the Embassy tapes of
Oswald thru the DFS and Oswald threatened JFK on them, and then someone
fitting the above criteria wrote you in an attempt to discredit it. No--
instead you wait for the whole story to come out before you applied the Paul
Hoch test to it.
Total hypocrisy.
-Stu
"John McAdams" <John.M...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:39d691f3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John McAdams
>
> John,
>
> The hypocrisy is showing on this matter as much as it does with Posner.
This is getting to be a theme of your conspiracists. I show skepticism,
and you don't argue that skepticism *isn't* in order. You call me a
hypocrite.
Are you or aren't you skeptical of somebody coming forward 37 years
after an historical event with an explosive story to tell?
> You
> would never apply the Paul Hoch ratio test to a soon-to-be pro-LN account if
> your only source for the "big names" that are supposedly in the story you
> know nothing about first-hand is
>
> 1) Someone has a clear personal and financial stake in discrediting the
> story
>
Why? He interviewed her. He could put her story in his book. *If* he
believed it.
> 2) Someone who you have disagreed with on virtually everything in the past
>
Not so. I disagree with Lifton on some things, but not others.
The key thing is not whether I trust Lifton's *judgement* on how to
evaluate evidence. I obviously don't. The question is do I trust him
to tell the truth about what the witness said. I most certainly do.
> 3) Someone who has argued 2 of the 3 Holy-Trinity-Of-JFK-Tales: those being
> Z-film and body-alteration. Granted, he has helped to debunk the 3rd member
> of the Holy Trinity, or should I call it unholy, that being the
> Oswald-Double/Twin theory.
>
Lifton is anti-Garrison. In my view, that gets him to the .500 mark.
Better than a lot of conspiracists.
> There is no way on Earth you would accept that if someone came out and said
> they had found a witness who had gotten access to the Embassy tapes of
> Oswald thru the DFS and Oswald threatened JFK on them, and then someone
> fitting the above criteria wrote you in an attempt to discredit it.
Nonsense. I've expressed skepticism right here on the newsgroup about
*contemporaneous* accounts of Oswald threatening Kennedy. I would be
even more skeptical about somebody coming forward 37 years after the
fact.
> No--
> instead you wait for the whole story to come out before you applied the Paul
> Hoch test to it.
> Total hypocrisy.
>
Give me a direct answer, Stu: do you accept or reject the Hoch Ratio
test?
I think that you and other conspiracists are upset because your strongly
suspect that this whole "Judyth" thing is bogus, and don't like the fact
that I'm saying it right up front.
> -Stu
>
> "John McAdams" <John.M...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
> news:39d691f3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >
John McAdams
>
> All this preemptive stuff doesn't reflect too well on the LN brigade : why
> not just wait, rather than giving the distinct impression of running
> scared?
Why not go ahead and reveal the story, rather than conceal it?
Aren't you the kind of conspiracist who has always thought that the
government ought to "release the documents?"
Why keep *this* secret? Except that it hasn't been kept secret.
Judyth's handlers have been leaking all sorts of stuff when it serves
their purpose, but then clamming up when pressed.
.John
--
John McAdams
>
> >From: HvK E...@bphil.org
>
> >All this preemptive stuff doesn't reflect too well on the LN brigade : why
> >not just wait, rather than giving the distinct impression of running
> >scared?
> >
>
> Hi HvK
>
> I totally agree with you. As far as I know Lifton is the only one that has
> talked to Judyth and he has never looked at the evidence that she has to back
> up her claim.
How could he??!!
Judyth's handlers are keeping it secret!
> I have also be told that Mr Lifton didn't really giver Judyth a
> very good interview.
OIC. You've been *told* that, have you?
And you believed it? But you were probably "told" by supporters of the
"Judyth" story, right?
And they were probably "told" by Judyth herself, right?
It sounds to me like she told Lifton some wacky things, and then when
she got wind of the fact that Lifton was saying her story is bunk she
starts explaining how he conducted such a terrible interview.
> All he was interested in was her opinion of his book. If
> people will wait just a little longer they will see the assassination in a
> different light. The truth has long be suspected but now all the real players
> will be brought out. I know that most of the people on this NG will give what I
> have to say much respect but I will still ask in Judyth's behalf that she be
> given the benefit of the doubt.
>
Why? She waits 37 years and then comes out with a wild story about
being Lee Oswald's girlfriend and knowing all these very sinister people
-- the usual cast of characters in conspiracy books -- in New Orleans.
Did you believe the Roscoe White business? Chancey Holt? Beverly
Oliver?
There is a history here, you know. The burden is on Judyth's supporters
to produce some hard evidence. And just showing that she worked at
Reily Coffee Company doesn't prove much.
.John
John McAdams
:-)
Conspiracists seem to believe that testimony like this should be taken
at face value until proven false. But of course you're right. It's
incumbent on the supporters of this tale to prove it.
.John
--
John McAdams
>
> This is a complete lie, John.
> Judyth offered Lifton details, and he said he had no time for them. She
> offered to show him the evidence, and he declined.
Judyth told you this, right?
> The demand that we start handing out chunks of documentation at your
> behest is just more bullshit, John. You can wait for publication like
> everyone else.
But in the meantime you'll mention certain selected claims of hers, like
a link between Ferrie and Mary Sherman, and the "pull down stairway"
linking Banister's office to the 544 Camp address.
You want it both ways. You want to cite her as a witness when
convenient, and then claim "confidentiality" when somebody wants to
*assess* the credibility of the witness.
> The claim that we've been leaking "all sorts of stuff" is also a lie.
> Very little has been discussed--one reason you've been frustrated. It is
> sheer hypocrisy, after complaining we weren't offering enough to now say
> we've been revealing "all sorts of stuff."
See above. You've recited several pieces of her testimony.
> Why bother?
> You'll get the information when everyone else does, and no sooner. If
> you don't have the patience for that, it's not my problem, nor anyone
> else's but your own.
And if you can't stand the heat for concealing information, it's not my
problem.
And you're the person who believed the IRS should release the Paine's
tax returns! It seems that "confidentiality" don't matter for ordinary
citizens' tax returns. It's only matters when some "witness" like
Judyth starts telling stories.
> We talked with Judyth about the Lifton call right away, so there was no
> "later version" resulting from feedback we didn't get until some time
> later. It "sounds to me" like you're grasping at straws and assuming the
> worst--with no evidence whatsoever to support it.
OIC. You're *admitting* that Judyth told you about the call. You have
no independent knowledge -- she didn't tape it or anything. You're just
accepting her word.
> You're blowing smoke, John--and ugly smoke at that. You're implying
> things you can't prove, making accusations without any evidence for
> them, and relying on the word of someone you normally wouldn't give an
> ounce of credit to. The hypocrisy is rank, John.
This from a buff who's been crying "release the files" for 30 years.
But now it serves *your* interest to conceal information.
> Nothing is being "kept secret." It just hasn't been published yet. I'm
> sure you know a lot of colleagues who hand over their manuscripts before
> publication, don't you? And I'll bet they hand them over to those they
> believe will be most critical of them, too, don't they. And you can't
> see the stink of your own hypocrisy?
Martin, almost any academic project has been presented in a series of
convention papers, seminars, etc. The rule is that when somebody *asks*
for a paper of yours, you send it. Or in recent years, just point them
to the place on the web where it can be gotten.
The rules in academia *invite* critical examination from people who
aren't inclined to agree. I've been sent literally dozens of papers by
academic journals because those papers disagree with some of the things
I've published, and the editors want my input.
> You post repeated and even repetitive demands for evidence--and yet you
> have no problem lightly impugning the integrity of a witness and several
> researchers without a scrap of it!! Must be coaching the witness; must
> be a fraud; must be "concealing evidence." Based on WHAT, John? Based on
> NOTHING.
As for "concealing evidence," you're admitting it IN THIS POST.
As for "coaching," I've never accused you of *intentionally* coaching
the witness. I have worried out loud about what happens when a witness
is continually interviewed.
The process of interviewing witnesses *changes* their testimony,
Martin. And it can do so without any *intent* to produce a bogus tale.
> The evidence is there, John. When it lands on you, it will land hard.
> You are setting yourself up, and the results will be no one's fault but
> your own. Then, you can tell us how glad you are to have it all out
> there.
>
See my other post on this.
mshack
Judyth offered Lifton details, and he said he had no time for them. She
offered to show him the evidence, and he declined.
behest is just more bullshit, John. You can wait for publication like
everyone else.
Very little has been discussed--one reason you've been frustrated. It is
sheer hypocrisy, after complaining we weren't offering enough to now say
we've been revealing "all sorts of stuff."
You'll get the information when everyone else does, and no sooner. If
you don't have the patience for that, it's not my problem, nor anyone
else's but your own.
"later version" resulting from feedback we didn't get until some time
later. It "sounds to me" like you're grasping at straws and assuming the
worst--with no evidence whatsoever to support it.
things you can't prove, making accusations without any evidence for
them, and relying on the word of someone you normally wouldn't give an
ounce of credit to. The hypocrisy is rank, John.
sure you know a lot of colleagues who hand over their manuscripts before
publication, don't you? And I'll bet they hand them over to those they
believe will be most critical of them, too, don't they. And you can't
see the stink of your own hypocrisy?
have no problem lightly impugning the integrity of a witness and several
researchers without a scrap of it!! Must be coaching the witness; must
be a fraud; must be "concealing evidence." Based on WHAT, John? Based on
NOTHING.
You are setting yourself up, and the results will be no one's fault but
your own. Then, you can tell us how glad you are to have it all out
there.
Martin
--
Martin Shackelford
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those
who have not got it." ---George Bernard Shaw
John McAdams wrote:
>
> Karl Vissers wrote:
>
> >
> > >From: HvK E...@bphil.org
> >
> > >All this preemptive stuff doesn't reflect too well on the LN brigade : why
> > >not just wait, rather than giving the distinct impression of running
> > >scared?
> > >
> >
> > Hi HvK
> >
> > I totally agree with you. As far as I know Lifton is the only one that has
> > talked to Judyth and he has never looked at the evidence that she has to back
> > up her claim.
>
> How could he??!!
>
> Judyth's handlers are keeping it secret!
>
> > I have also be told that Mr Lifton didn't really giver Judyth a
> > very good interview.
>
> OIC. You've been *told* that, have you?
>
> And you believed it? But you were probably "told" by supporters of the
> "Judyth" story, right?
>
> And they were probably "told" by Judyth herself, right?
>
> It sounds to me like she told Lifton some wacky things, and then when
> she got wind of the fact that Lifton was saying her story is bunk she
> starts explaining how he conducted such a terrible interview.
>
> > All he was interested in was her opinion of his book. If
> > people will wait just a little longer they will see the assassination in a
> > different light. The truth has long be suspected but now all the real players
> > will be brought out. I know that most of the people on this NG will give what I
> > have to say much respect but I will still ask in Judyth's behalf that she be
> > given the benefit of the doubt.
> >
>
> Why? She waits 37 years and then comes out with a wild story about
> being Lee Oswald's girlfriend and knowing all these very sinister people
> -- the usual cast of characters in conspiracy books -- in New Orleans.
> Did you believe the Roscoe White business? Chancey Holt? Beverly
> Oliver?
>
> There is a history here, you know. The burden is on Judyth's supporters
> to produce some hard evidence. And just showing that she worked at
> Reily Coffee Company doesn't prove much.
>
> .John
> -
stuart wexler
Accepting the "Paul Hoch Ratio Test" is entirely distinct from what you
are doing: *prejudging a story based on the second-hand account of one
person who, and I will elaborate, has a CLEAR financial stake in one
version of the Oswald story.* Ask Paul if he would apply his own test to a
story based on Lifton's second-hand account of it, or if, instead, he
would WAIT for it to come out. Skepticism and prejudgment are two totally
different things. You are bashing a story that you know very little
about, and your only source for it is someone who has, not for days, not
for months, but FOR YEARS has been writing his own account of Oswald. Do
you think Lifton maybe, just maybe, would have-- EVEN UNCONSCIOUSLY-- the
desire to have HIS account (to be published in a book that will probably
be out any month now) rule the day. Might his attitude, view and thoughts
on that be skewed by such a thing. This is not to say he hasn't
contributed to the research community-- but that anyone who has invested
at least 6 years of their life into establishing a particular account of
something might not want to scrap it in the final hour, or even go down
that path. It's to say he has biases and interests that should make you
SKEPTICAL about where he is coming from on this story. I too, am
skeptical about the story. But I'll let it sink or swim based on its
merits, not what one person says before I know virtually ANY of the
details.
-Stu
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:39D8AD...@marquette.edu...
John McAdams
<stu-d...@home.com> wrote:
>John,
>
>Accepting the "Paul Hoch Ratio Test" is entirely distinct from what you
>are doing: *prejudging a story based on the second-hand account of one
>person who, and I will elaborate, has a CLEAR financial stake in one
>version of the Oswald story.*
Hasn't Martin quoted Judyth as linking Oswald to Ferrie and Banister?
And hasn't Martin claimed she linked Ferrie to Mary Sherman?
Parts are dribbling out, and they seem to fly in the face of the "Hock
Ratio Test."
>Ask Paul if he would apply his own test to a
>story based on Lifton's second-hand account of it, or if, instead, he
>would WAIT for it to come out.
I think Paul knows that it's not just Lifton's "second-hand" account.
It's what Martin has said, what's been published in salon.com, etc.
>Skepticism and prejudgment are two totally
>different things. You are bashing a story that you know very little
>about, and your only source for it is someone who has, not for days, not
>for months, but FOR YEARS has been writing his own account of Oswald. Do
>you think Lifton maybe, just maybe, would have-- EVEN UNCONSCIOUSLY-- the
>desire to have HIS account (to be published in a book that will probably
>be out any month now) rule the day.
The only thing wrong with this argument is that Lifton's book and
Judyth's book are very different kinds of books. One is sort of like
KENNEDY RIPPLES, and Lifton's book . . . I don't know an analogous
title here, but it's a secondary account radically different and going
after a very different market.
>Might his attitude, view and thoughts
>on that be skewed by such a thing.
Sure. But then Judyth might be lying. :-).
>This is not to say he hasn't
>contributed to the research community-- but that anyone who has invested
>at least 6 years of their life into establishing a particular account of
>something might not want to scrap it in the final hour, or even go down
>that path.
He went down the path in March, and decided it wasn't leading
anywhere.
>It's to say he has biases and interests that should make you
>SKEPTICAL about where he is coming from on this story.
But I was skeptical *before* David chimed in. Remember, the woman
from salon.com interviewed me.
>I too, am
>skeptical about the story. But I'll let it sink or swim based on its
>merits, not what one person says before I know virtually ANY of the
>details.
>
We know a fair number of the details, and it's not shaping up well.
John McAdams
>The evidence is there, John. When it lands on you, it will land hard.
>You are setting yourself up, and the results will be no one's fault but
>your own. Then, you can tell us how glad you are to have it all out
>there.
>
You keep saying there is evidence, and you choose to reveal *parts* of
it -- like the documents showing she worked at Reily Coffee Company at
the same time Oswald did. But let me ask you whether you have *any*
of the following:
1.) Any account dating from the 60s or 70s tying her to Oswald? Some
unreliable witness who was asked in the 90s isn't impressive.
2.) You have claimed she was around Banister's office, right? The
Garrison investigation and the HSCA went over the issue of who was
around Banister's office with fine-tooth combs. Is there any document
from either investigation putting Judyth at Banister's office?
3.) Any evidence aside from her own claims that she was fired because
of her relationship with Oswald?
4.) She ties both Ferrie and Oswald to the CIA, I understand. Is
there any reason to doubt secret internal CIA documents saying that
neither was connected with the Agency?
I know you may refuse to answer, but maybe Dave Blackburst or Jerry
Shinley or Dave Reitzes can jump in and tell us whether they have seen
any such evidence.
It really does strain belief that someone so supposedly important in
Oswald's story never produced any witnesses -- until very recently.
Nor any investigative documents.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jerry
Anybody can throw out the names Ferrie, Banister, Phillips. They're all
safely dead. They're not around to defend themselves.
However if she came up with some names that had never surfaced in the
usual conspiracy novels and her info proved accurate and valuable then
her credibility would be established.
I believe this is what Paul Hoch's ratio test states.
But, going into this story at its entry point, there are two issues
that raise red flags:
1. The idea that Oswald was sexually-driven or romance-seeking in the
summer of '63 is contrary to what we know of him,
2. The idea that "agents" "spill the beans" to bedmates is also
difficult to credit.
But, we'll see what she has when she finally gets around to laying her
cards on the table -- how long has it been since she's surfaced?
Jerry
In article <7XcC5.30492$ib7.4...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jerry
You are right-on-the money with this.
To the degree that she recycles the all-too-familiar names of Ferrie,
Bannister, Sherman, Phillips, then, we should suspect she's gotten the
names from conspiracy books.
However, if she comes up with names we've not heard of before AND they
pan out as legitimate suspects, then, our suspicions will be overcome
and we'll take her as having genuine knowledge.
"Roshoman To The Extreme" has a very long list of people who claim
insider knowlege. Judyth is just another, along with Robert Morrow and
James Files, to be listed.
I don't know why she or her handlers are being so dilatory or cagey
about releasing her info. Maybe they're all looking for a way to market
her so as to maximize profits?
Jerry
In article <39d96e42...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
mshack
Perhaps I haven't made myself clear.
Perhaps you are much denser than I thought.
Or perhaps you're putting on an act to further your agenda.
Do you understand the concept of a "confidentiality agreement"?
You are granted access to information on condition that you won't
release it without permission until the matter goes public. This has
nothing to do with demanding the release of government files, nor with
seeking that Lifton and Posner release their interviews. The demand
you're making is pre-publication, and is completely hypocritical. You
know the difference, yet you keep hammering on the propaganda points. Im
not "concealing" a damned thing, John. I'm keeping my word UNTIL
PUBLICATION, just as anyone with integrity would do.
David Lifton violated a verbal agreement to maintain
confidentiality (and, no, my source isn't only Judyth, John--on any of
this--one of my sources saw Lifton's own notes of the call--so much for
your allegation of "no independent knowledge" and "just accepting her
word").
Can't stand the heat? No, John. What I can't atand are accusations
against the integrity of good people when you have NO EVIDENCE. NONE.
Your claim to know "a fair number of the details" is simply a lie,
though perhaps you don't know that, and believed what Lifton posted.
You refer to the witness being "continually interviewed"--this is
totally false, and, again, you have no evidence for the absurd claim,
just loudly voiced suspicions. You make Joe McCarthy look almost
responsible.
In one post, you demand that I reveal evidence prematurely. In
another post, you claim that I have been revealing evidence. Make up
your mind, John. I have shared a couple of statements, but NO evidence
(see above, if that still puzzles you).
Why you would think that, after I have repeatedly pointed out that
I will NOT share any of the evidence prior to publication, I would
answer your questions, is beyond me. More likely, you knew that I would
not, and wanted to leave them hanging out there, with their
implications. Newsgroup readers know that questions are not answers. I
will say that the answers to #1 will surprise you, #2 implies something
she hasn't claimed, #3 is not what she has said, and it is hard to
believe you are asking in #4 if there is any reason not to believe the
CIA.
At this point, John, you don't know WHAT her story produced,
because your questions clearly show you haven't heard even a remotely
accurate account of it. Perhaps you've been "briefed" by Lifton. That's
the only explanation I can think of for your crackpot idea that Judyth's
book in any way resembles "Kennedy Ripples." Lifton didn't "go down the
path in March"--he glanced at the path, and turned away without
exploring it.
I CHALLENGE LIFTON TO POST HIS COMPLETE HANDWRITTEN NOTES OF THE
CALL!!
In case you aren't up on the literature, it was Ed Haslam who
linked Ferrie and Mary Sherman.
You refer to "Salon.com" as though it were a reliable source. It
is totally unreliable, at least the three columns on this matter are.
Lifton's posts, and yours, are no better.
mshack
We're not "her handlers." That's just nonsense. No one is being
"dilatory or cagey about releasing her info." None of us have any
background in marketing, and haven't focused on that at all. If you
don't understand the concept of a pre-publication "confidentiality
agreement," read my response to John.
I thought both of you guys were brighter than this.
John McAdams
>
[snipping abuse]
>
> Im
> not "concealing" a damned thing, John. I'm keeping my word UNTIL
> PUBLICATION, just as anyone with integrity would do.
[snipping]
Let's review the points Martin is responding to:
<Quote on>
You keep saying there is evidence, and you choose to reveal *parts* of
it -- like the documents showing she worked at Reily Coffee Company at
the same time Oswald did. But let me ask you whether you have *any*
of the following:
1.) Any account dating from the 60s or 70s tying her to Oswald? Some
unreliable witness who was asked in the 90s isn't impressive.
2.) You have claimed she was around Banister's office, right? The
Garrison investigation and the HSCA went over the issue of who was
around Banister's office with fine-tooth combs. Is there any document
from either investigation putting Judyth at Banister's office?
3.) Any evidence aside from her own claims that she was fired because
of her relationship with Oswald?
4.) She ties both Ferrie and Oswald to the CIA, I understand. Is
there any reason to doubt secret internal CIA documents saying that
neither was connected with the Agency?
I know you may refuse to answer, but maybe Dave Blackburst or Jerry
Shinley or Dave Reitzes can jump in and tell us whether they have seen
any such evidence.
It really does strain belief that someone so supposedly important in
Oswald's story never produced any witnesses -- until very recently.
Nor any investigative documents.
<Quote off>
Now Martin fumes about how I'm demanding information, and how it would
be unethical of him to reveal it, but -- as my reference to Dreitzes,
Blackburst, and Shinley should have made clear -- I'm asking about
*public* records in the Garrison files, or FBI or Secret Service files,
or HSCA files.
I don't see why Martin would have to conceal (say) a Garrison
investigation record of a witness who saw Lee Oswald with Judyth.
> Why you would think that, after I have repeatedly pointed out that
> I will NOT share any of the evidence prior to publication, I would
> answer your questions, is beyond me. More likely, you knew that I would
> not, and wanted to leave them hanging out there, with their
> implications. Newsgroup readers know that questions are not answers. I
> will say that the answers to #1 will surprise you,
But you're not at liberty to point to a public document from the WC, the
Garrison investigation, or the HSCA, eh?
> #2 implies something
> she hasn't claimed,
Martin, you *posted* the claim of Judyth about a "drop-down stairway"
linking Banister's office to 544 Camp.
How would she have known that if she was not there?
> #3 is not what she has said,
Then who *said* she said that? I've heard it from at least one of her
supporters.
> and it is hard to
> believe you are asking in #4 if there is any reason not to believe the
> CIA.
Great. You don't believe secret internal CIA memos.
Don't you recognize what a farce this issue is? You buffs cry "Release
the documents!" for three and a half decades, and then when the
documents are released you insist they are a pack of lies!
.John
--
John McAdams
>
> John,
>
> Perhaps I haven't made myself clear.
> Perhaps you are much denser than I thought.
We'll see who is dense, Martin.
> In case you aren't up on the literature, it was Ed Haslam who
> linked Ferrie and Mary Sherman.
No, he *claimed* to have linked them. In fact he had no evidence. He
came onto the Nuthouse a few years ago with that claim, and failed to
back it up.
But did Judyth link Ferrie and Sherman too?
Don't be evasive. Answer the question!
BTW, do you actually believe Ferrie and Sherman were "linked?"
.John
--
John McAdams
>
> John,
>
> Can't stand the heat? No, John. What I can't atand are accusations
> against the integrity of good people when you have NO EVIDENCE. NONE.
> Your claim to know "a fair number of the details" is simply a lie,
> though perhaps you don't know that, and believed what Lifton posted.
> You refer to the witness being "continually interviewed"--this is
> totally false, and, again, you have no evidence for the absurd claim,
> just loudly voiced suspicions. You make Joe McCarthy look almost
> responsible.
Then how often was she interviewed, Martin, and by how many different
people?
I know you claim "confidentiality" prevents you from posting the details
of her story. But does it require you to conceal the process by which
the story developed?
.John
--
John McAdams
>
> I CHALLENGE LIFTON TO POST HIS COMPLETE HANDWRITTEN NOTES OF THE
> CALL!!
I don't know about handwritten (that would create massive gif files) but
my impression is that he's digging around and will post the complete
text of his notes.
But you'll just call him a liar, won't you?
BTW, Martin, will *YOU* post the complete record of how Judyth's story
developed, and do so as soon as the book is released?
You know what I mean: notes, transcripts, recordings of interviews,
dates of all the known interviews and names of the interviewers, etc.?
I wouldn't expect you to supply that to people for free, but Lancer
makes a business of getting key documents and distributing them for a
reasonable fee.
You *do* believe this information should be available, right?
.John
--
Jerry
msh...@concentric.net wrote:
> Jerry,
>
> We're not "her handlers." That's just nonsense. No one is being
> "dilatory or cagey about releasing her info." None of us have any
> background in marketing, and haven't focused on that at all. If you
> don't understand the concept of a pre-publication "confidentiality
> agreement," read my response to John.
> I thought both of you guys were brighter than this.
Martin,
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt & please note that I have
voiced no criticism of you in this matter.
I don't like being told:
a) there's a big story out there and a witness who will rewrite what we
know about Oswald and the assassination,
and,
b) you'll just have to wait for the details.
I know you praised Groden for "liberating" (as you termed it) autopsy
photos. In that vein, I call on somebody to liberate this story.
And, I assure you that I will hear it with an open mind and if it does
overturn fundamental things I believe now, so be it.
Jerry
mshack
Liberating material wrongfully withheld by the government is one thing.
Vomiting up evidence piecemeal before it can be presented in context is
quite another. It won't happen.
mshack
written account of her experiences.
The account hasn't changed in content since it's original setting down.
mshack
confirmed as authentic by someone who read the notes.
It wouldn't, however, require "massive" files to post them. Far less,
for example, than the Muchmore frames posted today. That's the poorest
excuse I've ever heard. All of Fritz's notes were posted, too, remember?
Are you asking whether I'll "post" or make available through Lancer
23 (so far) thick file folders of material documenting the history of
our contacts? No. It's a ridiculous request--not even Lancer would put
out that much material. Don't be a complete jerk, John. And will it be
done "as soon as the book is published"? Even more ridiculous--and quite
impossible. But an easy demand to make, isn't it?
Paul Seaton
Then maybe everyone can come back & continue the thread when we all know
what the devil we're talking about?
PS.
mshack <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:39DAB3...@concentric.net...
> No, John, I won't call him a liar if the "text" he publishes is
> confirmed as authentic by someone who read the notes.
> It wouldn't, however, require "massive" files to post them. Far less,
> for example, than the Muchmore frames posted today. That's the poorest
> excuse I've ever heard. All of Fritz's notes were posted, too, remember?
> Are you asking whether I'll "post" or make available through Lancer
> 23 (so far) thick file folders of material documenting the history of
> our contacts? No. It's a ridiculous request--not even Lancer would put
> out that much material. Don't be a complete jerk, John. And will it be
> done "as soon as the book is published"? Even more ridiculous--and quite
> impossible. But an easy demand to make, isn't it?
>
mshack
I don't know when the book will be published. As you may know, that
isn't something decided by authors, much less myself.
I do hope, however, that the story will go public soon in some
form, and I will announce that on alt.conspiracy.jfk when it is about to
happen.
John McAdams
>
> What nonsense, Jerry.
> Liberating material wrongfully withheld by the government is one thing.
> Vomiting up evidence piecemeal before it can be presented in context is
> quite another. It won't happen.
>
Martin, providing "piecemeal" information would not be a problem IF HER
STORY WERE TRUE. But it seems to be a danger to her handlers because
each piece would be torn to pieces.
.John
--
John McAdams
>
> No, John, I won't call him a liar if the "text" he publishes is
> confirmed as authentic by someone who read the notes.
> It wouldn't, however, require "massive" files to post them. Far less,
> for example, than the Muchmore frames posted today. That's the poorest
> excuse I've ever heard. All of Fritz's notes were posted, too, remember?
Ken McDonald's files, by their nature, have to be huge. But people with
slow Internet connections might have to pass on them.
But if you would call him a liar when he posts text that you don't like,
you could equally accuse him of forging his notes, couldn't you?
> Are you asking whether I'll "post" or make available through Lancer
> 23 (so far) thick file folders of material documenting the history of
> our contacts? No. It's a ridiculous request--not even Lancer would put
> out that much material. Don't be a complete jerk, John. And will it be
> done "as soon as the book is published"? Even more ridiculous--and quite
> impossible. But an easy demand to make, isn't it?
>
So you're going to keep it all secret -- or perhaps just show it to
researchers you know to be sympathetic? Or who will give a pledge of
"confidentiality" to prevent them from blowing the whistle?
And this from a fellow who's been crying "release the documents" for 30
plus years!
.John
--
John McAdams
>
> What nonsense, Jerry.
> Liberating material wrongfully withheld by the government is one thing.
> Vomiting up evidence piecemeal before it can be presented in context is
> quite another. It won't happen.
>
OIC. You have decided that the material was "wrongfully withheld by the
government."
Martin, material on Judyth is being wrongfully withheld by a handful of
researchers who are protective of her story.
Free the Judyth Baker story!!
.John
--
stuart wexler
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 04:06:27 GMT, "stuart wexler"
> <stu-d...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >John,
> >
> >Accepting the "Paul Hoch Ratio Test" is entirely distinct from what you
> >are doing: *prejudging a story based on the second-hand account of one
> >person who, and I will elaborate, has a CLEAR financial stake in one
> >version of the Oswald story.*
>
> Hasn't Martin quoted Judyth as linking Oswald to Ferrie and Banister?
Yes, and Reitzes has quoted Michael Kurtz as linking Oswald to Ferrie and
Bannister. He also believes Kurtz is being honest in his rendition. Why
couldn't Judyth be the same?
Do you know HOW she links them together and in what context? No. Why
don't you wait and see.
> And hasn't Martin claimed she linked Ferrie to Mary Sherman?
Since when did Mary Sherman become on of the big names-- like Ruby,
Oswald, Marcello, etc. ?? I don't find someone linking Ferrie to Sherman
something that qualifies for the Paul Hoch test. Beyond that point-- I
don't know HOW she links Ferrie to Sherman and in WHAT CONTEXT. Until I
do, I'm not passing judgement.
>
> Parts are dribbling out, and they seem to fly in the face of the "Hock
> Ratio Test."
Don't think so. Do you think Michael Kurtz was lying when he placed
Oswald in the company of Ferrie and Bannister? Reitzes seems, somehow, to
think Kurtz was simply *wrong*. But he doesn't question his honesty.
Under your scenario, we should simply dismiss Kurtz as a liar because he
fails the "Paul Hoch Test." Or perhaps, and this is just nuts isn't it,
Oswald actually did have a relationship with Ferrie and Bannister?
>
> >Ask Paul if he would apply his own test to a
> >story based on Lifton's second-hand account of it, or if, instead, he
> >would WAIT for it to come out.
>
> I think Paul knows that it's not just Lifton's "second-hand" account.
> It's what Martin has said, what's been published in salon.com, etc.
Martin has said very little. The salon.com article is a second-hand
account by a person who admits he has little capacity to guage her
credibility.
>
>
> >Skepticism and prejudgment are two totally
> >different things. You are bashing a story that you know very little
> >about, and your only source for it is someone who has, not for days, not
> >for months, but FOR YEARS has been writing his own account of Oswald. Do
> >you think Lifton maybe, just maybe, would have-- EVEN UNCONSCIOUSLY-- the
> >desire to have HIS account (to be published in a book that will probably
> >be out any month now) rule the day.
>
> The only thing wrong with this argument is that Lifton's book and
> Judyth's book are very different kinds of books.
This is a silly copout. The only reason why Lifton was put in touch with
her was because, as is obvious, any account of Oswald having a love-life
beyond Marina and any account that added more detail to Oswald's New
Orlean's life would quite OBVIOUSLY relate to a biography of Lee Harvey
Oswald. The problem here is that Lifton is contacting her in the 11th
hour of writing this book that has taken him YEARS to assemble. Anyone,
not just Lifton, would have a psychological resistance (to say the very
least) in taking an entirely different view on something they've developed
for 6 years.
One is sort of like
> KENNEDY RIPPLES, and Lifton's book . . . I don't know an analogous
> title here, but it's a secondary account radically different and going
> after a very different market.
What the books are "like" is irrelevant. An account of Oswald's love life
and time in New Orleans would most definitely relate to a biography of
Oswald-- that is why Lifton was put in touch with her. And that is why
one should be skeptical. Because after 6 years of researching a topic,
one already has a view on a given topic, and probably wouldn't be too keen
on changing it. And if the subject is open-mindedness to change-- let me
ask you John, has Lifton swayed at all on his opinions of body-alteration?
How about his opinions on Z-film alteration, despite the efforts of Martin
(yes, Martin), as well as Art Snyder, Tony Marsh, Josiah Thompson, Clint
Bradford, YOU, and others that have clearly established it's authenticity?
Yet you want me to believe he'd up and change his book in the final hour
if he came across something that took it in a completely different
direction. I respect the amount of effort Lifton puts into research, and
he may be correct in his assessment of Judyth, but I simply can't rely on
what he says given that he has a known interest in promoting a particular
view of Oswald.
>
>
> >Might his attitude, view and thoughts
> >on that be skewed by such a thing.
>
>
> Sure. But then Judyth might be lying. :-).
So why don't we wait and evaluate her story, as told by her, and not by
someone who you admit has a skewed view on this? Normally skeptical
people like Judy and Dave Blackburst are at least willing to SUSPEND
JUDGEMENT.
>
>
> >This is not to say he hasn't
> >contributed to the research community-- but that anyone who has invested
> >at least 6 years of their life into establishing a particular account of
> >something might not want to scrap it in the final hour, or even go down
> >that path.
>
> He went down the path in March, and decided it wasn't leading
> anywhere.
And he went down that path when he had already completed several YEARS of
research directed at his own take on Oswald's life.
>
>
> >It's to say he has biases and interests that should make you
> >SKEPTICAL about where he is coming from on this story.
>
>
> But I was skeptical *before* David chimed in. Remember, the woman
> from salon.com interviewed me.
Yes, and as in that case, you rely on a second-hand account. The reporter
admitted that she wasn't really qualified to evaluate her story-- the very
reason she contacted you and Summers in the first place. Lifton has a
clear interest in promoting his own version of Oswald. In both cases, you
have good cause to be skeptical of the SOURCES ON JUDYTH, and SUSPEND
judgement as to her claims.
>
>
> >I too, am
> >skeptical about the story. But I'll let it sink or swim based on its
> >merits, not what one person says before I know virtually ANY of the
> >details.
> >
>
> We know a fair number of the details, and it's not shaping up well.
I'd love to know your definition of "fair number of details." We know
virtually no context for anything. You are preemptively slamming a story
with very little to go on. Apparently, a number of other open-minded
folks don't think they have a "fair number of details" to do the same.
-Stu
mshack
I have no idea why you keep posting nonsense like this.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And this
"handlers" crap is getting tiresome--she has no "handlers." And if I
felt in "danger" from posts like yours, I simply avoid the newsgroup.
The only danger here is phony accusations based on ignorance and
paranoia.
You'll ask much more intelligent questions (one hopes) when you
see the whole story.
Martin
--
Martin Shackelford
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those
who have not got it." ---George Bernard Shaw
John McAdams wrote:
>
> mshack wrote:
> >
> > What nonsense, Jerry.
> > Liberating material wrongfully withheld by the government is one thing.
> > Vomiting up evidence piecemeal before it can be presented in context is
> > quite another. It won't happen.
> >
>
> Martin, providing "piecemeal" information would not be a problem IF HER
> STORY WERE TRUE. But it seems to be a danger to her handlers because
> each piece would be torn to pieces.
>
> .John
> --
mshack
mshack
If Lifton publishes his original notes, which I very much doubt he will
do,
and if my source confirms that they are, indeed, the notes he showed the
person shortly after the call,
then NO, I won't denounce them as a forgery.
As for making several impossible suggestions, and then accusing me of
"going to keep it all secret" when I point out how ridiculous they are,
that's only propaganda, John, and no one here is dumb enough to take it
seriously, including you. The stack of materials at this point is over
four feet high. Do you REALLY think Lancer would put that out? Of course
you don't. Do you really think there is a practical way to "make it
available to anyone who requests it as soon as this goes public"? Of
course you don't. Hammer away, John. You have only your shreds of
credibility to lose.
I've never exacted a pledge of confidentiality from anyone regarding my
research materials, and I never will, John. You seem to have no problem
slandering without evidence, whether it's Judyth, me, Howard
Platzman--and yet, you seem to take David Lifton at his word.
Jerry
"stuart wexler" <stu-d...@home.com> wrote:
>
> "John McAdams" <John.M...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
> news:39d96e42...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 04:06:27 GMT, "stuart wexler"
> > <stu-d...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >John,
> > >
> > >Accepting the "Paul Hoch Ratio Test" is entirely distinct from
what you are doing: *prejudging a story based on the second-hand
account of one person who, and I will elaborate, has a CLEAR financial
stake in one version of the Oswald story.*
> > Hasn't Martin quoted Judyth as linking Oswald to Ferrie and
Banister?
> Yes, and Reitzes has quoted Michael Kurtz as linking Oswald to Ferrie
and Bannister. He also believes Kurtz is being honest in his
rendition. Why couldn't Judyth be the same?
Which Reitzes? Reitzes is not static, but, evolving.
Why don't you call Kurtz and have a chat with him? He's easy to reach
and happy to talk.
I did & found his tales of Oswald accompanying Banister to LSU where he
haranged the assembled students because they had accepted the
integration of their school to be noncredible.
I don't think you remember people whom you don't know who are standing
on the sidelines. I know I wouldn't remember them. So I don't believe
that he could, either.
Just how many people "remembered" seeing Oswald -- all over the world?
Talk to him - you can do this. Talk to Judyth - I don't think so.
Jerry
John McAdams
>
> To quote the Beatles, John, "Free your mind instead."
>
Quoting the Beatles is probably better than quoting Yoda.
Dave Reitzes
> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 03:36:07 GMT
> From: "stuart wexler" <stu-d...@home.com>
>
> "John McAdams" <John.M...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
> news:39d96e42...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> Yes, and Reitzes has quoted Michael Kurtz as linking Oswald to Ferrie and
> Bannister. He also believes Kurtz is being honest in his rendition. Why
> couldn't Judyth be the same?
Correction: At the time I interviewed Kurtz, I believed him to be honest.
Kindly leave me out of this, Stu.
Dave
Perpetual Starlight
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes
Original fiction, articles, music and more
John McAdams
It seems this was posted almost three months ago. And yet Martin
hasn't responded.
mshack
I've said we aren't dribbling this out piecemeal on your newsgroup.