Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Poor Martin Shackelford, Arguing About James Files on Facebook
52 views
Skip to first unread message
John McAdams
Jan 8, 2012, 5:31:29 PM1/8/12
to
He should long since have learned that anything Judyth says is
nonsense. Now Judyth has gone a bit too far, and is supporting James
Files story.
<Quote on>
Martin Shackelford Nope, Judyth, I haven't seen Wim's "evidence" on
this. But I know that Joe West knew about the bitten bullet, and he
had extensive conversations about the case with Files before Files
ever went before the camera to give his account. What exactly does Wim
think he has that "proves" Files didn't get the information from West?
Wim can't prove a negative, so you're asking me to prove a double
negative, or accept that Files knew about the bullet before learning
of it from anyone else. I didn't say that I KNOW West told him, but
it's very difficult to believe that the subject never came up. As for
the snitch matter, that's of course why he would be in danger if he
exposed a Mob member. Convenient for him, though, that he can't
mention any living person who might be in a position to contradict
him, especially since some of his statements even about dead people
turned out to be false.
<Quote off>
If Martin knows Files story is nonsense, it's a mystery why he can't
figure out Judyth.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
nonsense. Now Judyth has gone a bit too far, and is supporting James
Files story.
<Quote on>
Martin Shackelford Nope, Judyth, I haven't seen Wim's "evidence" on
this. But I know that Joe West knew about the bitten bullet, and he
had extensive conversations about the case with Files before Files
ever went before the camera to give his account. What exactly does Wim
think he has that "proves" Files didn't get the information from West?
Wim can't prove a negative, so you're asking me to prove a double
negative, or accept that Files knew about the bullet before learning
of it from anyone else. I didn't say that I KNOW West told him, but
it's very difficult to believe that the subject never came up. As for
the snitch matter, that's of course why he would be in danger if he
exposed a Mob member. Convenient for him, though, that he can't
mention any living person who might be in a position to contradict
him, especially since some of his statements even about dead people
turned out to be false.
<Quote off>
If Martin knows Files story is nonsense, it's a mystery why he can't
figure out Judyth.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
black...@aol.com
Jan 8, 2012, 8:01:39 PM1/8/12
to
I feel bad for Martin. He's got his hands full with crazies and newbies
over there, and when he tries to correct them, they imply that he's a
disinfo agent.
over there, and when he tries to correct them, they imply that he's a
disinfo agent.
Canuck
Jan 8, 2012, 8:02:44 PM1/8/12
to
out. Does he still believe her story or is he simply being too polite
when responding to her questions or assertions? From his comments
above, it doesn't appear that he believes Files' allegations at all. -
Peter R. Whitmey
Dave Reitzes
Jan 10, 2012, 11:18:54 PM1/10/12
to
the obvious lack of "friendliness" between myself and Team Judyth.
Dave \:^)
Dave Reitzes
Jan 10, 2012, 11:37:06 PM1/10/12
to
On Jan 8, 8:01 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
> I feel bad for Martin. He's got his hands full with crazies and newbies
> over there, and when he tries to correct them, they imply that he's a
> disinfo agent.
It wasn't all that long ago Martin was filling this newsgroup with
> I feel bad for Martin. He's got his hands full with crazies and newbies
> over there, and when he tries to correct them, they imply that he's a
> disinfo agent.
crazy stories and directing abuse at those with the audacity to
question him.
He's made his bed and now he gets to lie in it. With Judyth. :-0
Dave
John McAdams
Jan 10, 2012, 11:50:16 PM1/10/12
to
haven't joined it, liked it or "friended" Judyth.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Dave Reitzes
Jan 11, 2012, 9:46:00 AM1/11/12
to
On Jan 10, 11:50 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
Dave
> On 10 Jan 2012 23:18:54 -0500, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> >What Facebook page is this from? I might not be able to view it, given
> >the obvious lack of "friendliness" between myself and Team Judyth.
>
> It's called Vindication for Judyth Vary Baker. I can view it, and I
> haven't joined it, liked it or "friended" Judyth.
>
> .John
At last Judyth gets an "open forum." \:^)
> >What Facebook page is this from? I might not be able to view it, given
> >the obvious lack of "friendliness" between myself and Team Judyth.
>
> It's called Vindication for Judyth Vary Baker. I can view it, and I
> haven't joined it, liked it or "friended" Judyth.
>
> .John
Dave
John McAdams
Jan 12, 2012, 11:18:44 AM1/12/12
to
testimony."
Just the sort of place Pamela loves!
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
Jan 14, 2012, 3:51:34 AM1/14/12
to
funny how that page seems to have turned into some sort of
mini-newsgroup .... haven't looked in awhile, maybe I should ....
Here's the link to it, Dave ... you should be able to view/read just
fine:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/348063875669/
Just took a peek and Judyth is complaining that she got "trashed" on
some new site called "JFK LONE NUT OR CONSPIRACY"?
It is here: http://www.mikefrancesa.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3416
There is also a link, if you do a facebook search, that comes up for
some "causes" site. Judyth is listed as the "causes leader" .... maybe
this is yet another site she started? "Defending and Vindicating Lee
Harvey Oswald -- Patsy, Hero and Patriot." It is here:
http://www.causes.com/causes/308048-defending-and-vindicating-lee-harvey-oswald-patsy-hero-and-patriot
Wish I had her energy.<g> I just want enough JVB energy left to get
all the fact checking/results together to go up. Dragged it out on
Tuesday and got started. Only willing to give up time one day a week,
but the sooner it is done the better .... and better late than never,
I suppose.
Barb :-)
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
Jan 14, 2012, 4:06:17 AM1/14/12
to
Kinda funny .... was just looking at something J posted pre-Toronto
trip at one of those links. Her itinerary/schedule. Includes a Toronto
hotel name for anyone who might still be interested interested. :-)
trip at one of those links. Her itinerary/schedule. Includes a Toronto
hotel name for anyone who might still be interested interested. :-)
msha...@gmail.com
Jun 18, 2012, 11:03:25 AM6/18/12
to
On Sunday, January 8, 2012 4:31:29 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
> He should long since have learned that anything Judyth says is
> nonsense. Now Judyth has gone a bit too far, and is supporting James
> Files story.
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Martin Shackelford Nope, Judyth, I haven't seen Wim's "evidence" on
> this. But I know that Joe West knew about the bitten bullet, and he
> had extensive conversations about the case with Files before Files
> ever went before the camera to give his account. What exactly does Wim
> think he has that "proves" Files didn't get the information from West?
> Wim can't prove a negative, so you're asking me to prove a double
> negative, or accept that Files knew about the bullet before learning
> of it from anyone else. I didn't say that I KNOW West told him, but
> it's very difficult to believe that the subject never came up. As for
> the snitch matter, that's of course why he would be in danger if he
> exposed a Mob member. Convenient for him, though, that he can't
> mention any living person who might be in a position to contradict
> him, especially since some of his statements even about dead people
> turned out to be false.
I see that McAdams and Reitzes still haven't seen through the myth of the Warren Commission, so not much can be expected of them.
> He should long since have learned that anything Judyth says is
> nonsense. Now Judyth has gone a bit too far, and is supporting James
> Files story.
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Martin Shackelford Nope, Judyth, I haven't seen Wim's "evidence" on
> this. But I know that Joe West knew about the bitten bullet, and he
> had extensive conversations about the case with Files before Files
> ever went before the camera to give his account. What exactly does Wim
> think he has that "proves" Files didn't get the information from West?
> Wim can't prove a negative, so you're asking me to prove a double
> negative, or accept that Files knew about the bullet before learning
> of it from anyone else. I didn't say that I KNOW West told him, but
> it's very difficult to believe that the subject never came up. As for
> the snitch matter, that's of course why he would be in danger if he
> exposed a Mob member. Convenient for him, though, that he can't
> mention any living person who might be in a position to contradict
> him, especially since some of his statements even about dead people
> turned out to be false.
I still find Judyth credible, for many of the same reasons I don't find Files credible.
Martin Shackelford
Sandy McCroskey
Jun 18, 2012, 3:05:41 PM6/18/12
to
msha...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2012 4:31:29 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>> He should long since have learned that anything Judyth says is
>> nonsense. Now Judyth has gone a bit too far, and is supporting James
>> Files story.
>>
>> <Quote on>
>>
>> Martin Shackelford Nope, Judyth, I haven't seen Wim's "evidence" on
>> this. But I know that Joe West knew about the bitten bullet, and he
>> had extensive conversations about the case with Files before Files
>> ever went before the camera to give his account. What exactly does Wim
>> think he has that "proves" Files didn't get the information from West?
>> Wim can't prove a negative, so you're asking me to prove a double
>> negative, or accept that Files knew about the bullet before learning
>> of it from anyone else. I didn't say that I KNOW West told him, but
>> it's very difficult to believe that the subject never came up. As for
>> the snitch matter, that's of course why he would be in danger if he
>> exposed a Mob member. Convenient for him, though, that he can't
>> mention any living person who might be in a position to contradict
>> him, especially since some of his statements even about dead people
>> turned out to be false.
> I see that McAdams and Reitzes still haven't seen through the myth of the Warren Commission, so not much can be expected of them.
> I still find Judyth credible, for many of the same reasons I don't find Files credible.
>
Well, then...
> On Sunday, January 8, 2012 4:31:29 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>> He should long since have learned that anything Judyth says is
>> nonsense. Now Judyth has gone a bit too far, and is supporting James
>> Files story.
>>
>> <Quote on>
>>
>> Martin Shackelford Nope, Judyth, I haven't seen Wim's "evidence" on
>> this. But I know that Joe West knew about the bitten bullet, and he
>> had extensive conversations about the case with Files before Files
>> ever went before the camera to give his account. What exactly does Wim
>> think he has that "proves" Files didn't get the information from West?
>> Wim can't prove a negative, so you're asking me to prove a double
>> negative, or accept that Files knew about the bullet before learning
>> of it from anyone else. I didn't say that I KNOW West told him, but
>> it's very difficult to believe that the subject never came up. As for
>> the snitch matter, that's of course why he would be in danger if he
>> exposed a Mob member. Convenient for him, though, that he can't
>> mention any living person who might be in a position to contradict
>> him, especially since some of his statements even about dead people
>> turned out to be false.
> I see that McAdams and Reitzes still haven't seen through the myth of the Warren Commission, so not much can be expected of them.
> I still find Judyth credible, for many of the same reasons I don't find Files credible.
>
Can you specify *which* of Judyth's stories or *what part(s)* of them
you find credible?
After all, she has contradicted her*self* many, many times, not to
mention the fact that so many of her stories have been proved false by
other people; there are instances of this that I think even you will
acknowledge.
/sandy
Chuck Schuyler
Jun 19, 2012, 7:31:03 PM6/19/12
to
Ace Kefford
Jun 20, 2012, 10:02:13 AM6/20/12
to
>
> Return of the Shackelford Expedition!
Re: seeking insight from the Judyth investigation, as we used to say
> Return of the Shackelford Expedition!
in the old parlor game, "You're getting colder. Colder. Colder.
You're freezing."
Alexander Foyle
Jun 22, 2012, 2:55:48 PM6/22/12
to AF GMX
On Jun 18, 5:03 pm, mshack...@gmail.com wrote:
> I see that McAdams and Reitzes still haven't seen through the myth of the Warren Commission, so not much can be expected of them.
> I still find Judyth credible, for many of the same reasons I don't find Files credible.
> Martin Shackelford
Hello Martin,
> I see that McAdams and Reitzes still haven't seen through the myth of the Warren Commission, so not much can be expected of them.
> I still find Judyth credible, for many of the same reasons I don't find Files credible.
> Martin Shackelford
Welcome back! Very interesting that you still find Baker credible. Do you
have any new reasons to say that? Surely there was nothing new to support
that view in her "authorized" book. Did I miss something?
What about the transcript of the interview with McCullough?
You said on July 29 2009:
"He's on tape, and there's a photo of him being interviewed at the time."
On the same day you said:
"I heard the tape. I don't have the tape."
When I asked you again you replied on August 1st 2009:
"I listened to the tape. If I had a copy, I would have made a transcript,
as I have done with other tapes and videos I do have. You don't seem to
know the difference between a fact and an excuse, but then, one of your
"reliable sources" seems to be Dave, who has the same problem. I don't
know if Mac's photo will be in the book or not. I'm looking at it now,
taken at the taping session, but I don't know whether he has given
permission to publish it--people connected in some way to Marcello's
organization can be a bit publicity shy."
See:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
As you know, McCullough is one of the two alleged witnesses to Baker's
tales, so it would be wonderful to hear and/or read this interview with
him. Baker's only other witness has since passed away and was not willing
to support Baker any further after the interview that was done with her.
So, who did/has the McCullough interview and the photo?
In addition I kindly ask you to comment on these issues I had with Baker's
portrayal of Kerry Thornley in her latest tome:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
Especially with regards to the apparently phony WC testimonies Baker
mentions.
Thanks a lot and really good to have you back, albeit still not cured of
the Baker delusion.
Alex
timstter
Jun 22, 2012, 10:36:08 PM6/22/12
to
who makes Lee Harvey Oswald dolls and models Lee as a gay icon.
The fellow is probably laughing up his sleeve at the blatant idiocy of
Baker claiming to be Oswald's girlfriend, LOL!
So much for *the witness* and all her schmexclusive ramblings, let
alone *9/11 Scholar For Truth* Fetzer's endorsement of her as
<snicker> The Real Deal.
JFK assassination research really hit an all time low with this lady.
Sorrowing Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
Anthony Marsh
Jun 23, 2012, 12:54:04 AM6/23/12
to
Oswald was gay. You might also remember that Garrison toyed with the
theory that the JFK was a gay plan since so many of the suspects were gay.
> The fellow is probably laughing up his sleeve at the blatant idiocy of
> Baker claiming to be Oswald's girlfriend, LOL!
>
still have a girlfriend. I suggest that you get out into the real world
some time.
0 new messages