LHO's Leafletting and Judyth.
Chad Zimmerman
when Lee was leafletting on Canal St.
1. She remembers Charles Steele wearing a tie.
2. She remembers Charles Steele wearing dark pants.
3. She remembers that the film crew had set up prior to Lee's arrival with
their big cameras?
4. She *might* be the woman seen in a short sequence of the film.
5. LHO appears to smile at the woman.
I don't have the book with me right now, but I'll cite the specifics when I
get home.
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
on pages 494-495:
"...Lee was busy putting on a littel ploy-pretending he had hired some
people (who actually had been previously set up to be available) in the
state employment agency. I was familiar with Lee's constant manipulation
of the state employment agency (he did say he had help there, though) ever
since the A-1 incident, so I was not surprised to find that Lee's
"employees" were rigged to seem to come from there by happenstance. Lee
told he had hired aspiring FBI agents so he wouldn't have to worry about
their talking about the demonstration later to anybody, or that would be
the end of their hopes for an FBI career. One of them, Charles Steele,
Jr., testified that Lee:
...asked me if I would like to make some money, I asked him, "Doing
what?" and he said, "Passing out these leaflets in front of the Trade Mart
Building," and I said, "About how long will it take?" and he said, "About
15 or 20 minutes at the most." I figured $2 for 20 minutes, and I am going
on vacation next week, that could come in handy, and so I said, "All
right."
Steele incidentally gives away the fact tha the demonstration was planned
to last a very short time, before police might arrive to cause trouble.
Mr. Jenner: Did you eventually look at these leaflets?
Mr. Steele: Yes, after a few minutes. When I saw the cameras I got
suspicious then and looked at one of them.
In fact, he provideds evidence that the TV filming was pre-planned, for
the bulky cameras and equipment were already set up before Steele looked
at a leaflet. Filmin the demonstration was intended to provide both
evidence and publicity, as well as to guarantee that no police brutality
or abuse by any anti-Castroites would occur, for it would be captured on
film. Steele also said:
"I have walked down Canal Street myself a lot of times, and somebody
has handed me a leaflet like that, and I just take it, and most of the
time I just throw it in the nearest trash can; I don't read them."
This indicates how common such leafleting was on the streets of New
Orleans, and that Lee's event, complete with pre-arranged filming, was
unusual. But how could the world's number one designated "loser", "nobody"
and "loner" (as of November, 1963)- Lee Harvey Oswald- orchestrate an
event requiring so much cooperation from so many people? Steele, for
example, could not hide one additional clue. He claimed to have
accompanied his girlfriend to the employment agency when the girl took her
typing test-and that he agreed to take on the job an hour or so later. He
came to the Trade Mart attired in a white shirt, sporting a narrow tie,
adn wearing dark slacks- the same way Lee was dressed, and the same way at
least two other "helpers" for Lee were dressed- also supposedly hired at
the last minute. They stood out like sore thumbs in the casual hot summer
atmosphere of The Big Easy- and they all looked like Feds to me.
(Picture of LHO handing out leaflets; blowup of female that *might* be
Judyth; blowup of LHO; comparison photos of Judyth and woman in question)
Caption reads:
August 16, 1963: Lee Oswald is shown with helpers-all identically dressed
in white shirts and ties, and with dark slacks-as they briefly distributed
flyers at the entrance to the Trade Mart. I was present: this photo might
also show me (with big black purse adn black high heels) speaking to two
Cuban girls. In the film from which this still was taken, Lee turns his
face slightly in the direction of this person and smiles as he approaches.
The sidewalk tilts down to the street, making the girls seem a little
taller. A crop of the still and a photo of me can be compared at the far
right. Endnotes give more details about objections that have been raised
concerning the identity of this woman? The photo is blurred, and I assumed
I left before filming began, until somebody showed me this photo and made
me wonder. Andrews identified two women (not facing viewer) who were
sisters, but gave conflicting versions about the identity of the third
woman.
Martin, do you think that Judyth was actually there?
Chad
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:44bc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Chad,
That's interesting. Thanks for posting it. Is she talking about the
Canal St leafletting or the Trade Mart leafletting?
As we all know, Charles Steele was only at the Trade Mart leafletting
and he wasn't wearing a tie. He also was wearing Bermuda shorts, not
slacks. Looks like Judyth is factually incorrect here re points 1 & 2.
I wonder what else she's got wrong.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
Chad Zimmerman
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e9i6r5$6...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>I believe she was, yes.
Must be that convincing evidence:
1. Charles Steele wearing a tie...but he wasn't.
2. Charles Steele wearing dark pants...but he wasn't, he was wearing Bermuda
shorts.
3. The "set-up" of the film crew with their "bulky cameras"....that weren't.
4. The tip-off and prearranged filming....that was set up by Oswald.
Oswald talked to Johann Rush on the preceding Monday. He asked Oswald if he
was
planning on handing out leaflets again. LHO said no. On Thursday or Friday
AM, Oswald
called the station and informed them that he'd be handing out leaflets. Two
filmers were
present and both had small, silent handheld cameras. Charles Steele was
wearing a
short-sleeved shirt without a tie and Bermuda shorts, not dark pants.
Johann Rush didn't show up until LHO was already out front of the Trade
Mart.
Of course, don't take it from me...that's what Johann Rush said- he also
provided
still frames showing Steele sans tie or dark pants.
Would you like the correspondence?
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
Chad
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153211060.0...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Chad Zimmerman
leafleting
on August 16th, 1963.
I provided the cited material to Johann below. His response is below:
"There were no "bulky cameras" that were "setup". I had a small 16 mm Bolex
silent hand-camera,
and Mike O'Connor had his small B&H DR silent hand camera. In the last scene
of my film you
can see Mike holding his small silent camera down to his side. Nothing was
"set up". There were no
cameras on tripods and no sound cameras.
When I drove up a couple of minutes before noon, I don't remember seeing
Oswald or anyone with
leaflets. I parked across the street in a garage and when I walked out and
onto the sidewalk, then I
saw Oswald in front of the Trade Mart and I think Steele was with him
picking up a hand full of leaflets.
I walked over and with my silent camera and said hello to Oswald and shot
some film of him and Steele
handing out leaflets. A couple of minutes later it was noon and people
started coming out of the Trade
Mart going to lunch. Then the small groups began to gather, the men talking
about the leaflets, and the
women talking about women things. Different groups gathered, talked, and
broke up and went about
their business.
The only "pre-arranging" of the filming was because Oswald called WDSU and
WWL to let us know
about his "group's" leafleting, hoping we would cover him and hoping the
Times Picayune would also
show up...
He got the idea for the Friday Aug. 16 leafleting from something I had said
to him at the Courthouse on
Monday Aug. 12. Alec Gifford, our news assigment director had asked me to
ask Oswald if he was going
to hand out leaflets again because if so we might want to film it. I told
him that on Monday, when I talked to
him at the Courthouse. He said he "had no plans" to hand out leaflets again,
but he called us by Thursday
or Friday AM to let us know about the Trade Mart leafleting on Friday at
noon.
Charles Steel was NOT dressed in "dark slacks, the same way Lee was
dressed." Charles Steele was
dressed in Bermuda shorts. That means Judyth was not there. She thought he
was dressed in "dark slacks"
because when she studied my film, most of my film does not show him below
the knees, and it looks like
he has on dark slacks, but he doesn't. Mike O'Connor's film does show Steele
below the knees and it
clearly shows him wearing Bermuda shorts. Also, Steele was NOT wearing a
tie. He was wearing a
short-sleeved shirt with an open collar, and no tie."
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e9i6r5$6...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Martin Shackelford
AS for "what else she's got wrong," it was YOU who got this one
wrong--ALL THREE LEAFLETTERS are shown on film wearing dark slacks,
white shirts and dark ties. Where do you get bermuda shorts?
Oh, I get it--another joke post. So many of those recently.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
They need to read the section more carefully about Steele.
1. I was never introduced to Charles Steele. I was told he was in one of
the still photos I've been shown. All of those men were well-dressed.
2. I never saw the cameras because I left so quickly. quote:
"...because the TV cameras were coming...(I had) to leave before I got
photographed." (p. 496)
3. My argument was that when Steele said that '"when I saw the cameras I
got suspicious then and looked at one of (the flyers)." that he wants us
to believe he never even looked at the flyers he was hired to hand out
---until he saw cameras arrive.
4. The word 'bulky" is a good description of these film cameras. I
didn't say ' huge" as Rush implies. They weren't Polaroids or Brownies.
BTW, tripods existed to use on these cameras. How steady is Rush's
film? Is it hand-held, or not? Google 'images' and see how 'bulky'
these motion picture film cameras are, for yourself. Compare them to the
size of ordinary still cameras used in 1963.
5. Only one film, so far as I know, survives, called the 'Rush Film," so
why did I say "TV cameras" (plural) instead of '"TV camera" ? Rush says
that two cameras were present. Was there a second film taken? The
implication is that there was. Has anybody ever seen this second film?
Mr. Rush, by the way, in his haste to confirm that there were two 16
mm Bolton silent motion picture cameras there, not just one, must ask
himself this question: how did Judyth know there was more than one TV
camera?
Judyth
jwrush
"Dr. Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:44bc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> The Chapter section is entitled 'White Shirts, Nice Slacks, and Thin Ties'
> on pages 494-495:
>
> "...Lee was busy putting on a littel ploy-pretending he had hired some
> people (who actually had been previously set up to be available) in the
> state employment agency.
Oswald hired only Charles Hall Steele at a local employment agency.
>
> Steele incidentally gives away the fact tha the demonstration was planned
> to last a very short time, before police might arrive to cause trouble.
The demonstration lasted about 30 minutes as a lot of people came out of the
Trade Mart to go to lunch and then the crowd thinned out. O'Connor from WWL
and I from WDSU hung around for about half an hour then we left. Handing out
leaflets was not illegal in New Orleans. Dozens of people did it every day
advertising restaurants and gift shops in the French Quarter and sales at
stores on Canal Street. The leaflets were a standard size required by city
code for hand-out leaflets. The cops didn't get involved in this stuff. This
was common in New Orleans. This wasn't really a "demonstration."
Demonstrations usually have people talking loud to the crowd. This was just
a common "leafleting".
> In fact, he provideds evidence that the TV filming was pre-planned, for
> the bulky cameras and equipment were already set up before Steele looked
> at a leaflet.
There were no "bulky cameras" that were "set up". Such cameras would be
sound cameras set up on tripods, but there were no sound cameras and no
tripods. That's why there are no sound film interviews at the Trade Mart.
I had a small hand-held Bolex and Mike had his small hand-held B&H DR. Both
were silent cameras. We used no tripods. I got there first and filmed Oswald
and Steele handing out leaflets at right about noon, which you can see in my
film. Mike arrived a little later. I got there right about noon just at the
start of Oswald and Steele starting to hand out leaflets. In one of the last
scenes in my film you can see Mike O'Connor standing talking to some of the
men and he's holding his small silent camera in his left hand.
>Filmin the demonstration was intended to provide both evidence and
>publicity, as well as to guarantee that no police brutality or abuse by any
>anti-Castroites would occur, for it would be captured on film.
No, Oswald wanted news coverage of his leafleting so he could build up a
pro-Castro resume to take to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City. He would have
preferred an article and photo in the Times Picayune, so he could take
clippings to Mexico City, but he never got it and he settled for the slight
TV coverage because that's all he could get. He mentioned the TV coverage in
his Cuban Embassy resume.
>Steele also said:
>
> "I have walked down Canal Street myself a lot of times, and somebody
> has handed me a leaflet like that, and I just take it, and most of the
> time I just throw it in the nearest trash can; I don't read them."
>
> This indicates how common such leafleting was on the streets of New
> Orleans, and that Lee's event, complete with pre-arranged filming, was
> unusual.
It was unusual because Oswald was unusual. These types of leaflets usually
advertised restaurants and French Quarter gift shops. I can't think of
anyone else who handed out pro-Castro leaflets in New Orleans during the
years I was there.
>But how could the world's number one designated "loser", "nobody" and
>"loner" (as of November, 1963)- Lee Harvey Oswald- orchestrate an event
>requiring so much cooperation from so many people?
Well, doh, he hired Steele, he might have talked two other guys into meeting
him at the trade mart (the two unidentified guys in white shirts and ties),
and he called WDSU and WWL to announce that his "organization", the FPCC
would be handing out pro-Castro leaflets at the Trade Mart. We thought he
really had an "organization". He conned us.
Anglo guys handing out pro-Castro leaflets was unusual, and that made it a
small news story. It would be like a couple of Anglo guys handing out "Free
Saddam Hussein" leaflets today in any major American city. The local TV
stations would probably cover it because it would be a real oddity. Odd
causes and events make the news, like the nude girls handing out leaflets
for PETA.
>Steele, for example, could not hide one additional clue. He claimed to have
>accompanied his girlfriend to the employment agency when the girl took her
>typing test-and that he agreed to take on the job an hour or so later. He
>came to the Trade Mart attired in a white shirt, sporting a narrow tie, adn
>wearing dark slacks- the same way Lee was dressed, and the same way at
>least two other "helpers" for Lee were dressed- also supposedly hired at
>the last minute. They stood out like sore thumbs in the casual hot summer
>atmosphere of The Big Easy- and they all looked like Feds to me.
Steele wore shorts and no tie. The two other guys were the "unidentified
guys", which I've been the only person on the internet to continuously point
out. I've posted their pictures on this newsgroup. As far as I know, they
still remain unidentified. Only the shorter of the two handed out a few (but
not many) leaflets.
>
> (Picture of LHO handing out leaflets; blowup of female that *might* be
> Judyth; blowup of LHO; comparison photos of Judyth and woman in question)
The lady with the black purse who "might be Judyth" looks quite pregnant to
me.
JW Rush - (I filmed the Trade Mart event for WDSU TV, Mike O'Connor filmed
it for WWL TV. I filmed mainly aimed in toward the front of the Trade Mart.
Mike filmed mainly aimed out toward the street.)
jwrush
Well, is she the pregnant-looking lady in the picture with the black purse,
or did she leave before the cameras arrived? Which is it? She wants to have
it both ways.
I had a Bolex and Mike O'Connor had a B&H DR. Both were small silent
cameras. Both of our films were shot with hand-held cameras, and there were
no tripods set up. I arrived first, then Mike arrived later. There were no
cameras "set up" at all. She made up so much stuff about the Trade Mart
leafleting, and now she is trying to back down.
Steele took a hand full of leaflets from Oswald and started handing them
out. When he saw me filming a close-up of him he evidently looked at a
leaflet to see what it said. Most of these kinds of leaflets were
advertisements for restaurants, gift shops in the French Quarter, and sales
at stores on Canal Street. People were hired from employment agencies every
day to hand out this kind and size of leaflet. Most of them were not
political. Most were advertisements.
Both my and the O'Connor films still exist and have been shown on TV and our
stills have been published in many books. Even the most basic researcher
knows this. At the end of my film you can see O'Connor standing with the
group of men, holding his B&H camera down to his side in his hand.
Rush
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e9ko6l$8...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Chad Zimmerman
> Judyth's reply to Chad regarding this matter:
>
> They need to read the section more carefully about Steele.
Um, Judyth, I posted it verbatim.
>
> 1. I was never introduced to Charles Steele. I was told he was in one of
> the still photos I've been shown. All of those men were well-dressed.
Yeah, ties and dark slacks, as you said. Steel wasn't wearing a tie or dark
slacks.
You studied the wrong film.
>
> 2. I never saw the cameras because I left so quickly. quote: "...because
> the TV cameras were coming...(I had) to leave before I got photographed."
> (p. 496)
Yes, but then you say that you might've actually been captured on film.
Martin's been
touting the dress as though it were identical to one that you had then
(strangely missing
from the book). You explain away the *pouch* as bloating and how that could
be
you.
Now you claim you never even saw a camera, but that they were bulky cameras.
Make up your mind, please.
>
> 3. My argument was that when Steele said that '"when I saw the cameras I
> got suspicious then and looked at one of (the flyers)." that he wants us
> to believe he never even looked at the flyers he was hired to hand
> out ---until he saw cameras arrive.
Yeah, that happens. Us guys don't often pay attention to those things when
we're
doing it for some quick money.
>
> 4. The word 'bulky" is a good description of these film cameras.
That you just claimed you didn't see.
"I never saw the cameras because I left so quickly."
I
> didn't say ' huge" as Rush implies. They weren't Polaroids or Brownies.
> BTW, tripods existed to use on these cameras.
What does that have to do with anything? No tripods were used that day,
which
is the point.
How steady is Rush's
> film? Is it hand-held, or not?
Yes, it is a handheld. Both were. Want the make and model?
Google 'images' and see how 'bulky'
> these motion picture film cameras are, for yourself. Compare them to the
> size of ordinary still cameras used in 1963.
Judyth, Johann Rush told me himself what exactly was used that day, how it
was all *set-up*, etc.
He has actually replied to this thread. I'd suggest reading it.
>
> 5. Only one film, so far as I know, survives, called the 'Rush Film," so
> why did I say "TV cameras" (plural) instead of '"TV camera" ?
I don't know, why'd you say "gargoyle" for a ring that DB invented?
Rush says
> that two cameras were present. Was there a second film taken? The
> implication is that there was. Has anybody ever seen this second film?
Yep. If you'd had it, you'd remember Steele's tie-less attire with Bermuda
shorts.
> Mr. Rush, by the way, in his haste to confirm that there were two 16 mm
> Bolton silent motion picture cameras there,
That's not what he said. Read it again.
not just one, must ask
> himself this question: how did Judyth know there was more than one TV
> camera?
Well, you claim to have scrutinized Charles Steele's statments, right?
Your answer is in your own book:
"Mr. Steele: Yes, after a few minutes. When I saw the cameras I got
suspicious then and looked at one of them."
So, how'd Steele know there were cameras- he was there. That's how.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
pleasure.
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e9khua$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Chad Zimmerman
> The Trade Mart leafletting--that's where the television footage was taken.
> AS for "what else she's got wrong," it was YOU who got this one wrong--ALL
> THREE LEAFLETTERS are shown on film wearing dark slacks, white shirts and
> dark ties. Where do you get bermuda shorts?
> Oh, I get it--another joke post. So many of those recently.
>
> Martin
>
> tims...@gmail.com wrote:
>> TOP POST
>>
>> Hi Chad,
>>
>> That's interesting. Thanks for posting it. Is she talking about the
>> Canal St leafletting or the Trade Mart leafletting?
>>
>> As we all know, Charles Steele was only at the Trade Mart leafletting
>> and he wasn't wearing a tie. He also was wearing Bermuda shorts, not
>> slacks.
Martin, all you have is the Rush film. The O'Connor film clearly shows
Steele
wearing shorts and NO tie. Rush has the stills to prove it. Apparently I
have to
provide that to convince you of Judyth's errors.
Looks like Judyth is factually incorrect here re points 1 & 2.
>> I wonder what else she's got wrong.
1. No slacks on Steele.
2. No tie on Steele.
3. No bulky cameras- regardless of what she says now. They were small,
handheld
cameras.
4. Oswald himself set up the filming after talking with Rush on Monday of
that week.
She has almost NOTHING right.
In one breath, she claims she saw the cameras, then denies it. Then she
pacifies
her comments describing what she claims are small cameras, then goes into
talking about how those are set up with tripods and asks me if the film
appears
to be handheld or on a tripod.
This is Judyth's fishing in action.
Chad
jwrush
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e9kgj5$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> AS for "what else she's got wrong," it was YOU who got this one wrong--ALL
> THREE LEAFLETTERS are shown on film wearing dark slacks, white shirts and
> dark ties. Where do you get bermuda shorts?
> Oh, I get it--another joke post. So many of those recently.
>
> Martin
Hi. Here's a link to one of my still-frames from my Trade Mart film showing
that Steele was wearing shorts:
http://i2.tinypic.com/20gyzqo.jpg
There is a front view of Steele wearing shorts in the O'Connor film.
Here is a link to a still frame from my Trade Mart film, showing Steele with
no tie:
http://i1.tinypic.com/20gywet.jpg
And here's the pregnant lady holding the black purse:
http://i1.tinypic.com/20gz57s.jpg
Rush
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Martin,
No, no joke. Here is a still of Steele at the Trade Mart from the WWL
film:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?
docId=10490&relPageId=237
Perhaps you'd care to point out his black tie Martin?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
Chad Zimmerman
Thanks for posting this. It shows, quite clearly, IMO, that someone made up
this part from watching only ONE of the two news films that captured Oswald
handing out leaflets.
Johann Rush filmed it for New Orleans NBC affiliate WDSU, and Mike O'Connor
did
the same for WWL, the CBS affiliate there. Both clips have been shown many,
many times since 1963.
More below.
Gary Mack
"Dr. Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:<44bc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
GM: That is not at all how "spot news" stories were filmed in those
days. Silent TV news cameras were relatively small, about twice the size of
Zapruder's camera. No other equipment was necessary nor would anything have
been used. No tripods were used, as is obvious by looking at the films. TV
news photographers walk to the scene, setting their cameras as they walked,
and
started filming when something interesting was happening. No set-ups, no
advance planning, just shoot until you have enough to tell the story of what
was
taking place.
> Filmin the demonstration was intended to provide both evidence and
> publicity, as well as to guarantee that no police brutality or abuse by
> any anti-Castroites would occur, for it would be captured on film.
GM: This is silly, for there was no guarantee the film would be used or even
seen by anyone.
Steele also said:
>
> "I have walked down Canal Street myself a lot of times, and
somebody
> has handed me a leaflet like that, and I just take it, and most of the
> time I just throw it in the nearest trash can; I don't read them."
>
> This indicates how common such leafleting was on the streets of New
> Orleans, and that Lee's event, complete with pre-arranged filming, was
> unusual. But how could the world's number one designated "loser",
"nobody"
> and "loner" (as of November, 1963)- Lee Harvey Oswald-
orchestrate an
> event requiring so much cooperation from so many people?
GM: See Johann Rush's note, which accurately summarizes what he has been
telling
people for decades (me, included). A day earlier, Oswald called the WDSU
newsroom (and apparently the WWL newsroom, too) to say what he was going to
do.
Later, the newsrooms decided the event might prove newsworthy, so they sent
a
photographer to check it out. That's not orchestrating an event, that's
just
dumb luck. August 16 must have been a very slow news day.
Steele, for
> example, could not hide one additional clue. He claimed to have
> accompanied his girlfriend to the employment agency when the girl took her
> typing test-and that he agreed to take on the job an hour or so later. He
> came to the Trade Mart attired in a white shirt, sporting a narrow tie,
> adn wearing dark slacks- the same way Lee was dressed, and the same way at
> least two other "helpers" for Lee were dressed- also supposedly
hired at
> the last minute. They stood out like sore thumbs in the casual hot summer
> atmosphere of The Big Easy- and they all looked like Feds to me.
GM: Not so! The WWL film shows that Steele was, indeed, wearing Bermuda
shorts
and did not have on a tie.
Barb Junkkarinen
Well, by golly. Thanks for posting these. Can someone verify that this
pic of a pretty obviously pregnant woman holding a purse is the same
woman/photo that team Judyth alleges could be her?
Where's Paul ... got another hammer, there's another nail.
Barb :-)
>
>
>
jwrush
>I believe Rush may be sending that one into the NG for your viewing
>pleasure.
>
> Chad
I sent it last night as an embedded image, but I'm not sure if those will
work here, so I'm sending it again as a link to tinypic.
Rush
paul seaton
No ! No ! Your orientation is incorrect !! Don't you see, it's Judyth
TRYING HARD TO **REMEMBER**, Chad.? You watch, she'll remember it right
any day now...
paul s
paul seaton
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153344168.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> TOP POST
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> No, no joke. Here is a still of Steele at the Trade Mart from the WWL
> film:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?
> docId=10490&relPageId=237
>
> Perhaps you'd care to point out his black tie Martin?
There's a gruesome fascination in watching someone's world fall apart...
;-)
paul s
pame...@mindspring.com
woman is wearing has a waistline, and the woman has one too. The woman is
slouched over a bit.
Pamela
Barb Junkkarinen
>That photo shows no such thing. Barb is being creative. The dress the
>woman is wearing has a waistline, and the woman has one too. The woman is
>slouched over a bit.
Slouched and bloated ... maybe. The dress either has awaist or it's an
empire type dress ... which was "in" in those days. That slouch of
hers has quite a little bun in just the right spot.
HOw about Steele in the shorts and with no tie?
Barb :-)
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:55itb2d7mu0f8kobn...@4ax.com...
> That photo shows no such thing. Barb is being creative. The dress the
> woman is wearing has a waistline, and the woman has one too. The woman is
> slouched over a bit.
The woman has an obvious lower abdominopelvic protrusion. Judyth carefully
explains this
as potentially being the result of adhesions in her abdomen from prior
surgeries that cause
her to periodically bloat. Its in the source notes. I think I already
mentioned that. I've asked
Martin if ANY other pictures of her exist with such bloat...or in that
dress.
In the book, she mentions how she had her hair in curls that day, saying
that LHO commented
on that...which is how she explains the difference in the hair...as if one
could remember such...and
completely forget everything else: slacks, ties, bulky cameras that were
"set-up".
I think this is strike two.
Chad
Martin Shackelford
wasn't in the book--Harry may not have recognized its significance if it
was in the longer manuscript he edited down--when I spotted such things,
I got them back in, but I didn't have a good enough copy of this photo
for use in the book. The pattern of the dress is the same as the one in
the film.
SHE didn't say "gargoyle," she said "griffin," as you well know. The
fact that Blackburst asked about a ring he invented doesn't mean that
Judyth didn't see an ACTUAL ring among Ferrie's belongings. If
Blackburst invented a "special hat," would that mean that Ferrie didn't
own a hat?
As for Steele, there is no reason to assume that he was pointed out to
her. The error has nothing to do with whether or not she was there. As
for the hand-held cameras, they may be the reason she thought she left
before the cameras began filming--thinking they were amateur cameras, or
not noticing them.
She would have known there was more than one camera if she saw the
footage on television.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
which matches hers is the striped dress on the woman in the foreground
in: http://i1.tinypic.com/20gz57s.jpg
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Paul (& Martin if he is there),
Yes, tragic. Unfortunately my link to the WWL image didn't quite work,
but, for those that are interested, if they go to CD 87, page 237 at
the Mary Ferrell site they will see the image of Steele without a tie.
If they then go over the page to page 238 they will find the following
caption:
QUOTE ON
Charles Hall Steele, Jr., 1488 Madrid St., New Orleans, was handing out
circulars "Fair Play For Cuba" with Oswald in New Orleans 8-16-63.
QUOTE OFF
Of course, Martin can blow off a bit of steam about the Bermuda shorts
issue as he has above, but even Carlos Bringuier mentioned seeing a
photo of a guy in "Bermuda shorts" in his WC testimony in 1964, to my
recollection.
If Martin wants a cite I can provide it, but I feel that this
particular inconsistency in the Judyth Vary Baker account has been very
effectively dealt with by Chad Zimmerman and Johann Rush. It's time for
Martin to concede that Judyth's description of Steele doesn't fit the
known facts. As I say above, I wonder what else she's got wrong.
James K. Olmstead
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:e9njni$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> There may be some confusion here, including on Judyth's part. The dress which matches hers is the striped dress on the
> woman in the foreground in: http://i1.tinypic.com/20gz57s.jpg
>
> Martin
>
The confusion is on the part of Baker.......nobody else. The clear photo
posted of the lady with the black purse is not Baker.......so the women with
the striped dress becomes Baker because you can't see her face. This
taken with all the additional conflicts on this leafleting mentioned recently
just about fills the hole this book should be buried in.
Let Baker handle this Martin.......don't act in her behalf or waste your time.
She wrote the book....let her defend what she writes. Your job should be
done with.
jko
jwrush
> There may be some confusion here, including on Judyth's part. The dress
> which matches hers is the striped dress on the woman in the foreground in:
> http://i1.tinypic.com/20gz57s.jpg
>
> Martin
Hi, Martin, I was going by Chad's Judyth quote from the book: "I was
present: this photo might also show me (with big black purse adn black high
heels) speaking to two Cuban girls."
Also, didn't she comment about her stomach in the photo? We can't see the
stomach of the girl in the striped dress. Also, the girl in the striped
dress is dark skinned, she's a Latin American.
These girls in the photos are just secretaries. A lot of secretaries came
out of the Trade Mart at noon to go to lunch. Some spoke to each other for a
few minutes, then moved on. They weren't part of the demonstration.
Rush
Dixie M Dea
There may be some confusion here, including on Judyth's part. The dress
which matches hers is the striped dress on the woman in the foreground
in: http://i1.tinypic.com/20gz57s.jpg
Martin
----------------------------------------------------
Martin, I am so pleased that you did acknowledge this!
I was always under the impression Judyth used to claim that woman in the
forground was her or that it might have been her, and that she claimed
to still have the dress or one that looked like it anyway. So, I was
shocked when I read in her book about it now being this woman with the
black pocketbook. But, no one else seems to have picked up on that and I
didn't want to be the one to mention it either.
Actually, I would even think the one in the forground would more
resemble her in those days, even though I believe it is actually someone
else.
I wonder why she made this switch?
Dixie
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
>I have a poor Xerox copy of the photo of the dress--not sure why it wasn't
>in the book--Harry may not have recognized its significance if it was in
>the longer manuscript he edited down--when I spotted such things, I got
>them back in, but I didn't have a good enough copy of this photo for use in
>the book. The pattern of the dress is the same as the one in the film.
A decent picture of that dress would be nice for comparison purposes.
> SHE didn't say "gargoyle," she said "griffin," as you well know.
Martin, try and understand this, okay. This is the order of her responses:
1. Priest's, or priestly, ring. No description.
2. She lists numerous rings. The ring in question was religious; on old
Catholic ring or big Bishop's ring.
3. DB tells Howard it was a gargoyle.
4. J responds with 'griffin'.
5. She then sends DB an email with griffin's and gargoyles in it.
So, when I mention 'gargoyle' please reference that email.
The
> fact that Blackburst asked about a ring he invented doesn't mean that
> Judyth didn't see an ACTUAL ring among Ferrie's belongings.
Of course, it belies common sense to assume that the real ring was of
a winged mythological creature...just like the fictional ring in DB's mind.
For some reason, that doesn't appear odd to you.
If
> Blackburst invented a "special hat," would that mean that Ferrie didn't
> own a hat?
He, hat's and jewelry are almost the same thing! Most men I know have a hat.
Few have rings with mythological creatures on them. Nice try though.
> As for Steele, there is no reason to assume that he was pointed out to
> her.
Judester made the claims, Martin. She says ALL of them were wearing the
same stuff. They weren't. Pacify it as you wish.
She basically didn't get anything right in that passage that she couldn't
see
in the Rush film.
>The error has nothing to do with whether or not she was there.
Or it could.
As
> for the hand-held cameras, they may be the reason she thought she left
> before the cameras began filming--thinking they were amateur cameras, or
> not noticing them.
Why does she ask us numerous times why she said 'cameras' in the plural
sense
if she's not trying to intimate that she was there and saw the cameras?
> She would have known there was more than one camera if she saw the footage
> on television.
She would have know if she read Steele's testimony that she quotes in her
book, too.
Doesn't change the fact that she tries to vindicate herself by pointing out
mulitiple times
that she said 'cameras', not camera. You complain about my bias, but yours
shows like
a chancre.
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
not what's in the book.
The blatant confusion seems to keep mounting.
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e9njni$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
[......]
>As for Steele, there is no reason to assume that he was pointed out to
>her.
Go figure herdescription then.
>The error has nothing to do with whether or not she was there.
It certainly raises questions, Martin.
>As
>for the hand-held cameras, they may be the reason she thought she left
>before the cameras began filming--thinking they were amateur cameras, or
>not noticing them.
One who knows they need to get away lest they be caught on film would
be watching for such a thing, one would expect.
>She would have known there was more than one camera if she saw the
>footage on television.
Why? When they show newsclips on TV, they don't say "here's one from
camera A" and "this is what camera B saw."
Silly.
I hate that you are in the middle of this, Martin ... you are one of
the good guys.
Right now seeing you explain all this ... I just wish I was as
limber/flexible as you seem to be.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>There may be some confusion here, including on Judyth's part. The dress
>which matches hers is the striped dress on the woman in the foreground
>in: http://i1.tinypic.com/20gz57s.jpg
>
>Martin
I've never heard that person referred to as possibly being Judyth ....
so which person is it exactly that allegedly might be Judyth?
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:e9njni$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>> There may be some confusion here, including on Judyth's part. The dress which matches hers is the striped dress on the
>> woman in the foreground in: http://i1.tinypic.com/20gz57s.jpg
>>
>> Martin
>>
>
>The confusion is on the part of Baker.......nobody else. The clear photo
>posted of the lady with the black purse is not Baker.......so the women with
>the striped dress becomes Baker because you can't see her face. This
>taken with all the additional conflicts on this leafleting mentioned recently
>just about fills the hole this book should be buried in.
>
>Let Baker handle this Martin.......don't act in her behalf or waste your time.
>She wrote the book....let her defend what she writes. Your job should be
>done with.
Amen to that.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>
>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>news:e9njni$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>> There may be some confusion here, including on Judyth's part. The dress
>> which matches hers is the striped dress on the woman in the foreground in:
>> http://i1.tinypic.com/20gz57s.jpg
>>
>> Martin
>
>
>Hi, Martin, I was going by Chad's Judyth quote from the book: "I was
>present: this photo might also show me (with big black purse adn black high
>heels) speaking to two Cuban girls."
Exactly.
>
>Also, didn't she comment about her stomach in the photo?
Exactly.
>We can't see the
>stomach of the girl in the striped dress. Also, the girl in the striped
>dress is dark skinned, she's a Latin American.
Looks like you could be right.
Another claim .... another critique of things that don't add up ....
and a new round of explanations. Generally, the truth doesn't need
explaing. And re-explaining. And again. Etc.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Wow. Good pickup. Thanks for posting this.
Barb :-)
>
Brandon Alexander
>TOP POST
>
>Hi Chad,
>
>That's interesting. Thanks for posting it. Is she talking about the
>Canal St leafletting or the Trade Mart leafletting?
>
>As we all know, Charles Steele was only at the Trade Mart leafletting
>and he wasn't wearing a tie. He also was wearing Bermuda shorts, not
>slacks. Looks like Judyth is factually incorrect here re points 1 & 2.
>I wonder what else she's got wrong.
>
>Regards,
>
>Tim Brennan
>Sydney, Australia
>
She also said Oswald could drive a car, which is demonstrably untrue.
My guess is she couldn't do enough homework to cover all the lies she
had to tell to make her stories seem true.
Judyth is just like all RVs; when her "work" is looked into in detail,
it is found not to be based on fact.
Al.
.
paul seaton
"Dixie M Dea" <gatew...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1634-44B...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...
Her memory 'improved' , I would imagine..
--
Paul Seaton
jwrush
> Interesting, yet that's not the person she claims to be. At least, that's
> not what's in the book.
>
> The blatant confusion seems to keep mounting.
>
> Chad
One of the big problems with Judyth's story is that it keeps changing. She
wants to be there at the Trade Mart and not be there at the Trade Mart at
the same time. She wants big cameras "set up" there to take her picture,
but she also wants to leave before the cameras arrive. She wants to be the
pregnant lady with the black purse in one version of the story, but she
doesn't want to be pregnant, then she wants to be the dark skinned Latin
American lady in the striped dress in another version of the story, but
she doesn't want to be dark skinned or Latin American. She can't be BOTH
of the girls, the one with the black purse AND the one in the striped
dress. And she can't be THERE and NOT THERE at the same time. The fact
that she once might have owned a striped dress is meaningless. What does
that have to do with the JFK assassination?
Her story is obviously a hoax and it's just plain silly. It's a hoax by a
non-professional hoaxer, and she doesn't know how to pull it off.
Rush
jwrush
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nnrvb2hp3jsa1ftei...@4ax.com...
>
> Exactly.
>>
> Exactly.
>
> Looks like you could be right.
>
Wow!
By the way, the "stripes" on that dress are not normal stripes. They look
like they are made up of a lot of little rectangles of symbols like those
on international flags or nautical flags. I think it is a "flag dress". It
could possibly be a nautical flag dress.
http://i5.tinypic.com/20j1rab.jpg
Here's something similar in a modern T-shirt:
http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/everythingnautical_1898_2621380
Rush
bmoor...@rogers.com
This is the why Judyth made the switch:
Because the only woman that was not identified, positively ,was the Lady
with the black purse....But after she found out that the other two women
had been identified by Dean Andrews...see Weisberg... and that only left
the one possibllity..in order to insert herself within the photo..
See:
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Don't paint with sucjh a wide brush. He he userth "all" for much of
anything is almost *never* correct. And I hope you don't mean to say
that all CTs (what the heck does RV stand for anyway?) have their
profferings, books, articles,etc....uh...shall we say....rife with the
probs Judyth's memoirs do.
Talk about apples and oranges.
Barb :-)
Barb :-)
>
>Al.
>.
Barb Junkkarinen
>
>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:nnrvb2hp3jsa1ftei...@4ax.com...
>> On 20 Jul 2006 15:11:03 -0400, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Exactly.
>>>
>
>> Exactly.
>>
>
>> Looks like you could be right.
>>
>
>Wow!
:-)
>
>By the way, the "stripes" on that dress are not normal stripes. They look
>like they are made up of a lot of little rectangles of symbols like those
>on international flags or nautical flags. I think it is a "flag dress". It
>could possibly be a nautical flag dress.
>
>
>
>http://i5.tinypic.com/20j1rab.jpg
Ah, I see what you mean .. there is definitely some pattern of objects
in those stripes.
>
>
>
>Here's something similar in a modern T-shirt:
>
>
>
>http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/everythingnautical_1898_2621380
I can't tell if it's flags in the stripes in the pic, but there's
definitely something there.
Cripes, if it was Judyth's dress she should be able to tell us..... to
*have* said that it was stripes of ... whatever.
Thanks.
Barb :-)
>
>Rush
>
>
Martin Shackelford
had a terrible memory for faces. So she picked the wrong guy in the
film--I don't consider that a major piece of evidence.
The repetitious focus here on trivia seems to support Pamela's idea that
there is genuine concern about the book's primary content.
And, no, I'm not going to post any more lists for those who don't want
to bother with the book. Screw it.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
foreground. That is all I know about it.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
You believe that because Howard had been told "gargoyle" that he must
have conveyed it to Judyth. I don't find that credible. I know both of
them, and I know what the situation was in 2000. Not credible. Not in
the least.
I have several rings myself--perhaps you can "guess" the description of
the most unusual of them.
Perhaps it would be wise for you to go on to an issue that means something.
Martin Shackelford
memory. She is very good on her own direct personal memories. She is
fairly good on things told to her by others. But she is too easily
influence, as are most witnesses, by contamination from other
sources--the "Jean Hill" problem which Howard and I were determined to
avoid until we had a full idea of her account and documentation.
That's why I consider the Steele nonsense a non-issue.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
photographed around that time (same horizontal pattern)--unfortunately,
the several copies that I have are poor Xerox copies that don't show the
pattern clearly--I had a much clearer one but it was lost in my computer
crash in 2000. Perhaps someone to whom she also sent it would be kind
enough to post it here.
I don't know how the ID got switched to the woman on the left--maybe
someone told her that woman looked more like her, and because none of
the three are particularly clear images, she was swayed. It happens. The
"Jean Hill" effect again.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Dr. Chad Zimmerman wrote:
> <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:55itb2d7mu0f8kobn...@4ax.com...
>
>>That photo shows no such thing. Barb is being creative. The dress the
>>woman is wearing has a waistline, and the woman has one too. The woman is
>>slouched over a bit.
>
>
> The woman has an obvious lower abdominopelvic protrusion. Judyth carefully
> explains this
> as potentially being the result of adhesions in her abdomen from prior
> surgeries that cause
> her to periodically bloat. Its in the source notes. I think I already
> mentioned that. I've asked
> Martin if ANY other pictures of her exist with such bloat...or in that
> dress.
>
> In the book, she mentions how she had her hair in curls that day, saying
> that LHO commented
> on that...which is how she explains the difference in the hair...as if one
> could remember such...and
> completely forget everything else: slacks, ties, bulky cameras that were
> "set-up".
>
> I think this is strike two.
>
> Chad
>
>
>>Pamela
>>
>>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:18:52 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 19 Jul 2006 18:05:35 -0400, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:e9kgj5$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>>>
>>>>>The Trade Mart leafletting--that's where the television footage was
>>>>>taken.
>>>>>AS for "what else she's got wrong," it was YOU who got this one
>>>>>wrong--ALL
>>>>>THREE LEAFLETTERS are shown on film wearing dark slacks, white shirts
>>>>>and
>>>>>dark ties. Where do you get bermuda shorts?
>>>>>Oh, I get it--another joke post. So many of those recently.
>>>>>
>>>>>Martin
>>>>
>>>>Hi. Here's a link to one of my still-frames from my Trade Mart film
>>>>showing
>>>>that Steele was wearing shorts:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://i2.tinypic.com/20gyzqo.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There is a front view of Steele wearing shorts in the O'Connor film.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Here is a link to a still frame from my Trade Mart film, showing Steele
>>>>with
>>>>no tie:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://i1.tinypic.com/20gywet.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And here's the pregnant lady holding the black purse:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://i1.tinypic.com/20gz57s.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Rush
>>>
>>>Well, by golly. Thanks for posting these. Can someone verify that this
>>>pic of a pretty obviously pregnant woman holding a purse is the same
>>>woman/photo that team Judyth alleges could be her?
>>>
>>>Where's Paul ... got another hammer, there's another nail.
>>>
>>>Barb :-)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>www.in-broad-daylight.com
>>
>
>
>
>
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
thus it is not "demonstrably untrue" that he could drive--you were
unable to "demonstrate" it--just to suggest it may have been likely.
Others found your arguments slim.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
at present.
When she moved recently, after she took a load of her things out of the
home, some "helpful folks" who were eager to get the place ready for the
next resident put all of the rest of her stuff outside on the front
lawn--in the process destroying her scanner, and damaging her computer
and other accessories.
She was recently able to access her e-mail and the newsgroup on a
friend's computer, but I don't know how often this is possible.
You people are the least of her problems at the moment.
Martin
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Say all of the "amens" you want, but Judyth is in no position to respond
>at present.
>When she moved recently, after she took a load of her things out of the
>home, some "helpful folks" who were eager to get the place ready for the
>next resident put all of the rest of her stuff outside on the front
>lawn--in the process destroying her scanner, and damaging her computer
>and other accessories.
>She was recently able to access her e-mail and the newsgroup on a
>friend's computer, but I don't know how often this is possible.
>You people are the least of her problems at the moment.
>
>Martin
Poor Judyth ... a victim again.
I think the point of the post, Martin, was that you are not
responsible for trying to explain away eveything on Judyth's behalf.
You believe in her, you helped her, the book is out. You are not left
holding the bag ... don't have to be anyway. Judyth is responsible for
what she wrote, not you.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>c. 1963, she was photographed in a dress with the same pattern of stripes.
>
>Martin
Is that photo in the book? If not, why not.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
Very interesting! Thanks for posting this. Indeed, switching from one
person in the photo to another IS a distinct problem. When there are
always excuses and explanations at every turn, I guess some people
convince themselves that they actually work. That doesn't say much
about whoever does that sort of thing's opinion of their public. At
some point in time people ask, "Just how stupid does she thing we are,
anyway?"
As can be seen from the reams of posts on this subject .... mostly
pointing out real conflicts and other problems, I think it's obvious
that her public is not that stupid.
This is a keeper.
Thanks again,
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>The dress on the foreground woman matches one in which she was
>photographed around that time (same horizontal pattern)--unfortunately,
>the several copies that I have are poor Xerox copies that don't show the
>pattern clearly--I had a much clearer one but it was lost in my computer
>crash in 2000. Perhaps someone to whom she also sent it would be kind
>enough to post it here.
>I don't know how the ID got switched to the woman on the left--maybe
>someone told her that woman looked more like her, and because none of
>the three are particularly clear images, she was swayed. It happens. The
>"Jean Hill" effect again.
Silly. Makes the possibility that any of the women are her as very
very dubious ... and perhaps that because Steele id'd the woman in the
stripes and the one next to her as Cuban sisters, that left Judyth in
the role of the pregnant looking woman with the purse.
Just how much credibility does this lend to Judyth overall?
It;s no help ... it hurts.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>She never met Steele, didn't know what he looked like, and has always
>had a terrible memory for faces.
Latter day excuse. She apparently id'd him in the book ... correct?
And she had everyone in slacks, white shirts and ties. That has been
documented to simply not be true.
>So she picked the wrong guy in the
>film--I don't consider that a major piece of evidence.
You don't seem to consider any of her errors as major, Nartin. When
it's error after error requiring explanation and excuse for every one,
at what point does one begin to get uncomfortable? You obviously have
a much highher tolerance for that sort of thing, at least when it
comes to Judyth, than anyone else.
>The repetitious focus here on trivia seems to support Pamela's idea that
>there is genuine concern about the book's primary content.
The points she uses to tell her story ... and bolster it ... are not
trivia, Martin. Her story is a compendium of such trivia.
Of course there is concern about the book. And well there should be!
The "trivia" isn't stacking up and there is a steady stream of excuses
and explanations. Think it just might be that people are concerned
over the possibility of a crackpot book being out there ... one sorely
lacking in documentation, one that reads like a cheap romance novel
... that will essentially be one more black eye to conspiracy
believers that already take wide brush disdain?
>And, no, I'm not going to post any more lists for those who don't want
>to bother with the book. Screw it.
Bail, Martin, bail.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>I understand you perfectly well, Chad.
>You believe that because Howard had been told "gargoyle" that he must
>have conveyed it to Judyth. I don't find that credible. I know both of
>them, and I know what the situation was in 2000. Not credible. Not in
>the least.
>I have several rings myself--perhaps you can "guess" the description of
>the most unusual of them.
>Perhaps it would be wise for you to go on to an issue that means something.
>
>Martin
Martin, how can you think that this issue doesn't "mean something"???
You said something about Chad not being a good umpire as an interested
party .... check your own biases .... it's obvious why you have them,
but consider how much they are having an effect on your ability to be
objective about the problems/issues being raised. Your knee jerk
response to everything seems to be to attack/be condescending to the
messenger, then come up with an excuse, then come up with an
explanation.
The wonderful thing about truth is that it rarely, if ever, needs any
of those things.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>What I am familiar with that none of you are is the nature of Judyth's
>memory. She is very good on her own direct personal memories. She is
>fairly good on things told to her by others. But she is too easily
>influence, as are most witnesses, by contamination from other
>sources--the "Jean Hill" problem which Howard and I were determined to
>avoid until we had a full idea of her account and documentation.
>That's why I consider the Steele nonsense a non-issue.
It's an issue because she used it in the book ... and because she
apparently switched from being one woman to being another in the photo
as well.
Martin, if this was somebody whose work and person you weren';t so
deeply involved with, you'd be poking holes and crawling all over
nonsense like this.
Barb :-)
Chad Zimmerman
Stop umpiring then.
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e9po84$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>Martin,
>
>Stop umpiring then.
>
>Chad
Exactly. There is no one here more partisan as involves this book than
Martin.
Barb :-)
Chad Zimmerman
> She never met Steele, didn't know what he looked like, and has always had
> a terrible memory for faces. So she picked the wrong guy
It doesn't matter if the guy in shorts happened to be Maxwell Smart. She
said they all had ties and dark pants. Steele didn't. His name doesn't
matter.
in the
> film--I don't consider that a major piece of evidence.
Martin, she got nearly every detail concerning that passage wrong.
> The repetitious focus here on trivia seems to support Pamela's idea that
> there is genuine concern about the book's primary content.
Not really. I'm sure it will be discussed, once researchers are done
reading it.
Chad
jwrush
>... one sorely
> lacking in documentation, one that reads like a cheap romance novel
> ...
Barb,
I think you are right about that. I think she has just been using all of
us on the internet for publicity purposes. She got a debate going several
years ago, and that's good publicity for her "true confession" type of
cheap tawdry romance novel.
Rush
jwrush
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:44bc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Which of the following things are the best indicators that Judyth was
> there when Lee was leafletting on Canal St.
>
> 1. She remembers Charles Steele wearing a tie.
> 2. She remembers Charles Steele wearing dark pants.
> 3. She remembers that the film crew had set up prior to Lee's arrival with
> their big cameras?
> 4. She *might* be the woman seen in a short sequence of the film.
> 5. LHO appears to smile at the woman.
>
> I don't have the book with me right now, but I'll cite the specifics when
> I get home.
>
> Chad
It seems that with the help of Tim and B.Moore (and an earlier post by
McAdams), we have all three women in my Trade Mart photo identified in the
documents since '63-'64, with the identities available on the internet:
Victoria Realpey-Plaza and her sister Marguerite Realpey-Plaza:
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol11/page338.php
And Clemencia Almeida:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10530&relPageId=24
Rush
R J Johnson
think I saw a relocation similar to that in Michael Moore's film "Roger
and Me." These "helpful folks" didn't happen to have badges and court
order did they?
Wouldn't be the first time for something of this order. If anyone thinks
I'm making this up - check the public records for Manatee County, FL.
---- R J Johnson
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e9pr8f$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Barb Junkkarinen
Judyth must be the one standing in their midst ... where they hide our
view of her....she didn't want to be filmed, you know. That's gotta be
it ... there, explanation for that one taken care of. <g>
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
not the one in the foreground. Perhaps the problem is that it's been so
long since I saw a clear copy of the "dress" photo that I lost in a
computer crash in 2000.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
People here need to stop thinking of me as Judyhth's "mouthpiece"--I
post my own views, I don't post for her--except when I clearly label a
post as coming from her--fairly rare.
Martin Shackelford
I didn't claim not to be partisan. I simply pointed out that as Chad is
ALSO clearly partisan, he is in no position to be playing umpire, as in
his "strike two comment."
Martin
Martin Shackelford
woman, not including Judyth, so it can't very well be said that she has
been "identified."
Martin
Martin Shackelford
area who wanted to use the house for a party before the next people moved
in, so they emptied out the house as quickly as possible--which she
discovered upon her return for a second load.
Martin
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Martin,
Hmm, "she didn't know what he looked like", yet she is providing a
description of him in her book?
Steele is the only member of the Trade Mart leaflet team, besides
Oswald, ever to be identified and you "don't consider it a major piece
of evidence" that she is unable to provide even a passingly accurate
description of him? But we're expected to believe she was there?
Allied with all the other faux pas, including that she now "might" be a
different figure in the photograph than was first posited, this isn't
trivial. These are inconsistencies in her account about a very well
documented incident that call into severe question her claims about
having even been there, never mind her "spooky" interpretations of the
incident and the participants in her book.
Let me ask you something, Martin. When known witness Johann Rush came
onto this thread and provided details about the cameras used, did a
tiny alarm bell sound in your head when your star witness, Baker,
apparently rushed off to Google up an answer about "bulky" cameras? I
mean, she's a witness, right? Why is she Googling up a rebuttal for
Rush when she was actually there herself?
Is this a valid way to research in this case? Cobbling things together
on the run? Well, apparently it is, as her rebuttal was swiftly
provided by you, for the little good that did.
Still, maybe a tiny alarm bell did sound for you, Martin, as you now
appear to have taken to debunking the account in her book yourself,
judging by the "Black Handbag Lady" versus "Striped Dress Lady" fiasco.
Probably time for you to walk off the thread, really, so screw it, as
you say.
I mean, it's pretty hard to imagine a bigger research "screw up" than
having to debunk your own star witness in the middle of a newsgroup
firefight when you set out to defend their account in the first place
isn't it? Especially when you worked on their book and helped to
produce it?
Well, we all make mistakes, especially in a case like this, bedrocked
as it is on minutae, trivia and attention to detail in my experience,
though apparently not yours.
I don't know why you made the reference to posting any more lists. I
never requested that you post any lists. The only "list" I see at
present is the mounting list of factual inconsistencies in Baker's
account of the Trade Mart incident, which appears to be growing daily.
As far as a "genuine concern about the book's primary content" goes,
why would anyone have a concern after this Trade Mart recollection
fiasco, if they ever did in the first place? It's not a matter of "not
bother(ing) with the book", it's a matter that the book is currently
unavailable for purchase or study. No one can see "the primary
content", even if they wanted to.
On this newsgroup, from my observation, you are the person best placed
to give an update as to the current availibility or otherwise of
Judyth's book. You worked on the book, you helped with the notes, you
know Harry Livingstone who help fund it, whatever.
I don't see any current update from you as to when the book may become
available again. Perhaps I've missed it. If so, please direct me to
that thread and I will endeavour to obtain it.
Chad Zimmerman is providing verbatim quotes from the book, people are
commenting on those quotes, including people who were actually there
like Johann Rush, and also including people like me. If you have a
difficulty with that, or feel Chad is being selective in what he is
posting, you yourself have the book on CD or perhaps even in hard copy,
do you not? If so, why not post something to round out the picture, or
debunk Zimmerman?
Frankly, Martin, if anyone is debunking Judyth Vary Baker's account of
things, it appears that you are among them. If anyone is holding back
or limiting information about Judyth Vary Baker's account it also
appears that you are among them. If you wanted a decent debate on the
Trade Mart filming, what would it have cost you to provide a JPG or a
PDF of the image in contention? Or a scan page from Baker's book?
Particularly as a primary witness like Johann Rush chose to come back
on the board and debate the matter?
Say, Martin, I got a book out of Bankstown library, here in Sydney,
last week by Harrison Edward Livingstone. Of course, this is your
friend Harry Livingstone, and I must say that his book, which you must
be familiar with, called "Killing The Truth", is a decent JFK-CT tome.
He debunks quite a few, well, what I would class as JFK-CT types but is
reasonably even handed. I do hope that in your championing of Baker
that you haven't slipped over into actually "killing the truth". But,
hey, I live in Australia. What the Hell would I know? Oh well, off to
tape "Rendezvous With Death" part two tonight.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
Perhaps when
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> She never met Steele, didn't know what he looked like, and has always
> had a terrible memory for faces. So she picked the wrong guy in the
> film--I don't consider that a major piece of evidence.
> The repetitious focus here on trivia seems to support Pamela's idea that
> there is genuine concern about the book's primary content.
> And, no, I'm not going to post any more lists for those who don't want
> to bother with the book. Screw it.
>
steve
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Nor was she.
>
because she wasnt there dude
> Martin
>
> jwrush wrote:
>
> > "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > news:e9njni$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> >
> >>There may be some confusion here, including on Judyth's part. The dress
> >>which matches hers is the striped dress on the woman in the foreground in:
> >>http://i1.tinypic.com/20gz57s.jpg
> >>
> >>Martin
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi, Martin, I was going by Chad's Judyth quote from the book: "I was
> > present: this photo might also show me (with big black purse adn black high
> > heels) speaking to two Cuban girls."
> >
> > Also, didn't she comment about her stomach in the photo? We can't see the
> > stomach of the girl in the striped dress. Also, the girl in the striped
> > dress is dark skinned, she's a Latin American.
> >
> > These girls in the photos are just secretaries. A lot of secretaries came
> > out of the Trade Mart at noon to go to lunch. Some spoke to each other for a
> > few minutes, then moved on. They weren't part of the demonstration.
> >
> > Rush
> >
> >
> >
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>The "switch" was my error, not hers.
>People here need to stop thinking of me as Judyhth's "mouthpiece"--I
>post my own views, I don't post for her--except when I clearly label a
>post as coming from her--fairly rare.
>
>Martin
Martin, I didn't say you were her mouthpiece ... my comment stands, it
is my opinion, that if even an nth of this came from a work you
weren't so deeply involved with, you'd have been on all the errors and
conflicts like white on rice.
As for any "switch" she clearly identifies herself as the woman with
the big purse; you said the dress looks like that of the woman with
heer back to the camera and the stripes that go around the skirt of
her dress.
Forget what the book says, which person has it been YOUR understanding
that could possibly be Judyth: the lady witht the puse, or the lady
with the striped skirt to her dress?
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Are you both deficient in the English language?
>I didn't claim not to be partisan. I simply pointed out that as Chad is
>ALSO clearly partisan, he is in no position to be playing umpire, as in
>his "strike two comment."
>
>Martin
Why do you think Chad is "partisan"? He's reading the book and
expressing his opinions .... you've been associated with the author
and the work, plus you edited the end notes , for eons.
Hardly the same thing, Martin.
Barb :-)
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Barb, Johann et al,
I think I've worked it out. If you squint your eyes really hard when
you're looking at a copy of the "Pregnant Handbag Lady" photo, or perhaps
try a bad copy of Pizzo Exhibit 453-B, it's almost possible to discern
that PHL does not, in fact, have a handbag on her arm. She is actually
holding the lead of a seeing-eye dog, possibly of the Afghan variety.
Still squinting, I think I can discern that she is also wearing dark
glasses. Her white cane is inconveniently obscured by the Realpey-Plaza
sisters but I'm certain it must be there. No wonder she missed Steele in
his Bermuda shorts, because you'd have to be blind not to have seen them,
if you were there of course! :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
pame...@mindspring.com
I've tried reading a few 'tawdry' novels, and didn't get far. Judyth's
book I have trouble putting down. Not that I don't believe it has
conflicts. I do.
However, it is really well-written, even though it does indeed go off into
romantic tangents and pure silliness that some may roll their eyes at
(yes, even me).
My problem today is that I would almost rather not believe Judyth, as it
makes the contents of the book easier to live with. If I do believe her,
I find myself extremely distressed that such a quagmire of an intelligence
nightmare could take place, and that Judyth could have had full knowledge
of this for such a long time and not had the courage to come forward.
So, either way, today I'm not a very happy camper. :-0
pame...@mindspring.com
With all due respect, how were you able to counter the possibility that
Judyth had absorbed information prior to meeting you and Howard? McAdams
has repeatedly made statements claiming Judyth read Haslam before writing
her account. Is there documentation to support that she did not?
Pamela
On 21 Jul 2006 10:49:34 -0400, Martin Shackelford
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>What I am familiar with that none of you are is the nature of Judyth's
>memory. She is very good on her own direct personal memories. She is
>fairly good on things told to her by others. But she is too easily
>influence, as are most witnesses, by contamination from other
>sources--the "Jean Hill" problem which Howard and I were determined to
>avoid until we had a full idea of her account and documentation.
>That's why I consider the Steele nonsense a non-issue.
>
>Martin
>
>Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>
>> On 20 Jul 2006 12:40:47 -0400, Martin Shackelford
>> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>> [......]
>>
>>
>>>As for Steele, there is no reason to assume that he was pointed out to
>>>her.
>>
>>
>> Go figure herdescription then.
>>
>>
>>>The error has nothing to do with whether or not she was there.
>>
>>
>> It certainly raises questions, Martin.
>>
>>
>>>As
>>>for the hand-held cameras, they may be the reason she thought she left
>>>before the cameras began filming--thinking they were amateur cameras, or
>>>not noticing them.
>>
>>
>> One who knows they need to get away lest they be caught on film would
>> be watching for such a thing, one would expect.
>>
>>
>>>She would have known there was more than one camera if she saw the
>>>footage on television.
>>
>>
>> Why? When they show newsclips on TV, they don't say "here's one from
>> camera A" and "this is what camera B saw."
>>
>> Silly.
>>
>> I hate that you are in the middle of this, Martin ... you are one of
>> the good guys.
>>
>> Right now seeing you explain all this ... I just wish I was as
>> limber/flexible as you seem to be.
>>
>> Barb :-)
>>
>>>Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:e9i6r5$6...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I believe she was, yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Martin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dr. Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:44bc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Which of the following things are the best indicators that Judyth was
>>>>>>>>>there when Lee was leafletting on Canal St.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>1. She remembers Charles Steele wearing a tie.
>>>>>>>>>2. She remembers Charles Steele wearing dark pants.
>>>>>>>>>3. She remembers that the film crew had set up prior to Lee's arrival
>>>>>>>>>with their big cameras?
>>>>>>>>>4. She *might* be the woman seen in a short sequence of the film.
>>>>>>>>>5. LHO appears to smile at the woman.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I don't have the book with me right now, but I'll cite the specifics
>>>>>>>>>when I get home.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Chad
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
pame...@mindspring.com
us what you are insinuating here?
Pamela
On 21 Jul 2006 21:28:33 -0400, "R J Johnson"
<rj.jo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>They were not acting in an official capacity, no. They were folks from the
>area who wanted to use the house for a party before the next people moved
>in, so they emptied out the house as quickly as possible--which she
>discovered upon her return for a second load.
>
>Martin
Martin,
That is **THE** flakiest excuse for anything I have ever heard. If
true, she's no doubt already filed against the partygivers and the
landlord in small claims court - it'll be a cinch to win. More likely,
you should get out a dictionary and bone up on the word:
G-U-L-L-I-B-L-E.
Poor Judyth, always the victim. And below you said the things were put
out on the lawn by "some helpful folks who were eager to get the place
ready for the next resident."
That's okay, we're used to conflicting stories ... just usually not
quite so close on one another's heels.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Judyth commented that I was incorrect--that she was the woman on the left,
>not the one in the foreground. Perhaps the problem is that it's been so
>long since I saw a clear copy of the "dress" photo that I lost in a
>computer crash in 2000.
>
>Martin
Well, that shouldn't be a problem .... she still has the dress, right?
Or someone else has the photo. Oh wait, that dress didn't get left out
on the lawn did it ... along with the only computer that also has the
photo in it?
Martin, if you remember it was the stripe skirted dress, then I expect
it was the striped skirted dress. Otherwise, why on earth would you
even remember someone in a striped skirted dress in the photo.
Barb :-)
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
Personally, anyone can be an umpire on this- particularly when I've posted
the relevant material from the book in conjunction with that from Johann
Rush.
Judyth botched almost every detail for that brief segment. She wrote very
conclusive passages regarding those elements in her book. Such shoddy
research makes you wonder what else she claims as fact is based upon such
research...not to mention having to wonder if she was actually there. You
can make the 'Judyth's bad memory' thing go so far, but it is pretty
obvious that what she claims as a memory here was seen on a film, not in
reality.
Same goes for the alleged ring that she claims to have committed to memory
in her book, but the emails clearly show she was having a bit of a time
recalling detail.
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e9se0f$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
'McAdams clone' or other ad hominem BS.
Chad
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153564570.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
>Well that just sounds like a threat, doesn't it? Why don't you just tell
>us what you are insinuating here?
>
>Pamela
Doesn't sound like a threat to me, Pamela ... sounds like he's flat
out stating that the public records he refers to will show some sort
of either eviction or foreclosure at some point in time. Not anything
I care to check into ... unless something relates to her character or
relates to the story she's telling in some way, I figure it t'aint
none of my business.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 22 Jul 2006 19:46:12 -0400, Martin Shackelford
><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>Judyth commented that I was incorrect--that she was the woman on the left,
>>not the one in the foreground. Perhaps the problem is that it's been so
>>long since I saw a clear copy of the "dress" photo that I lost in a
>>computer crash in 2000.
>>
>>Martin
>
>Well, that shouldn't be a problem .... she still has the dress, right?
>Or someone else has the photo. Oh wait, that dress didn't get left out
>on the lawn did it ... along with the only computer that also has the
>photo in it?
BTW, you said all you had was an old xerox copy of the pic. Where's
that one?
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>TOP POST
>
>Hi Barb, Johann et al,
>
>I think I've worked it out. If you squint your eyes really hard when
>you're looking at a copy of the "Pregnant Handbag Lady" photo, or perhaps
>try a bad copy of Pizzo Exhibit 453-B, it's almost possible to discern
>that PHL does not, in fact, have a handbag on her arm. She is actually
>holding the lead of a seeing-eye dog, possibly of the Afghan variety.
>Still squinting, I think I can discern that she is also wearing dark
>glasses. Her white cane is inconveniently obscured by the Realpey-Plaza
>sisters but I'm certain it must be there. No wonder she missed Steele in
>his Bermuda shorts, because you'd have to be blind not to have seen them,
>if you were there of course! :-)
Cute. <g>
Barb :-)
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Chad,
Yeah, it looks like he had some "dark night of the soul" over at The
Nuthouse, talking things through with Vince Palamara or something.
Apparently "Harry" likes the book, though. I wonder if "Harry" is aware
of the mounting number of glaring factual anomalies in said tome?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia.
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
No, he's basically saying that he thinks Judyth was thrown out/evicted.
Chad
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:o4f5c29up4lb68rug...@4ax.com...
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:rec5c2ldbg74iff0m...@4ax.com...
> On 21 Jul 2006 21:21:20 -0400, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:kjv1c2li3imd4ejl9...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>... one sorely
>>> lacking in documentation, one that reads like a cheap romance novel
>>> ...
>>
>>Barb,
>>
>>I think you are right about that. I think she has just been using all of
>>us on the internet for publicity purposes. She got a debate going several
>>years ago, and that's good publicity for her "true confession" type of
>>cheap tawdry romance novel.
>>
>>
>>Rush
>
> I've tried reading a few 'tawdry' novels, and didn't get far. Judyth's
> book I have trouble putting down. Not that I don't believe it has
> conflicts. I do.
>
> However, it is really well-written, even though it does indeed go off into
> romantic tangents and pure silliness that some may roll their eyes at
> (yes, even me).
Yes, indeed it does.
>
> My problem today is that I would almost rather not believe Judyth, as it
> makes the contents of the book easier to live with. If I do believe her,
> I find myself extremely distressed that such a quagmire of an intelligence
> nightmare could take place, and that Judyth could have had full knowledge
> of this for such a long time and not had the courage to come forward.
>
> So, either way, today I'm not a very happy camper. :-0
Yes, one has to wonder how she's lived so long knowing she had the power
to halt JFK's assassination...if it is true.
Chad
>
> Pamela
> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
pame...@mindspring.com
there is something in the records that speaks negatively of her. He
needs to just make his point and/or move on.
Pamela
Martin Shackelford
She hadn't been introduced to Steele, and thus didn't know who he was,
just that he was passing out leaflets with Lee--and thus she picked out
the wrong guy from the film. Nothing to do with whether she was there.
The confusion about which woman she was--that was my error, not hers,
and she promptly corrected me. The "debunking" was an error--mine, not hers.
When you say I "worked on" her book and "helped to produce it," you seem
to imply more than was the case. I edited the End Notes, corrected
typos, input her corrections to the editor's final edit, and coordinated
the process of getting the book published. I didn't research the book,
despite some misleading posts here.
OF COURSE the book is "currently available." It was unavailable for
three weeks. Prior to that, it was selling well, and it has been
available again for a week and a half--as I posted--where have you been?
Anyone who wants a copy can obtain one relatively quickly. Another sign
that the book was available is that Leyden stopped harping on the claim
that it was "unobtainable."
As for Harry Livingstone, I said he edited and published the book. Where
did you get the idea that he "helped fund it"?
Chad Zimmerman is "providing" a number of things:
1) Vague false descriptions of the book.
2) "Paraphrases" which have turned out not to accurately portray what
the book actually says.
3) Quotes often taken out of context--as the twisting he did with the
"route" quote. It reads very differently in context. Often the context
to a quote is much more extensive than the quote--I have tried to state
the actual context without posting lengthy excerpts.
Accusing me of "holding back and limiting information" about Judyth
Baker's account is a genuinely bizarre charge to level at the person who
organized the publication of her account and evidence in the first
place. It is all available to anyone who wants it.
I'm glad you picked up Killing the Truth--in many ways, it is one of the
most valuable books in the case, due partly to the remarkable "Medical
Evidence Encyclopedia" it provides--the best summary ever done of the
medical evidence. It was done with the assistance of an important
researcher known to too few--Kathlee Fitzgerald, who worked with Harry
on several books, and who is currently updating her very valuable
reference work on the Secret Service.
Martin
From jmca...@panix.com Sun Jul 23 03:12:01 2006
Status: R
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
>From ne...@concentric.net Sun Jul 23 03:12:02 2006
Return-Path: <ne...@concentric.net>
X-Original-To: jmca...@panix.com
Delivered-To: jmca...@panix.com
Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.1.73])
by mailproc1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EAAEA7A3F9
for <jmca...@panix.com>; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:12:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from out6.mx.klmz.mi.voyager.net (out6.mx.klmz.mi.voyager.net [207.89.252.212])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E9FD9D9E2
for <jmca...@panix.com>; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:12:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from shell.core.com (shell.core.com [207.89.250.162])
by out6.mx.klmz.mi.voyager.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5253C4FC8B;
Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:12:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by shell.core.com (Postfix)
id 02EC28627A; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:12:01 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: jmca...@shell.core.com
Received: from chx400.switch.ch (chx400.switch.ch [130.59.10.2])
by shell.core.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B314286271
for <jmca...@shell.core.com>; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:12:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dispatch.sj.sys.us.xo.net ([64.0.17.9] helo=dispatch.concentric.net)
by chx400.switch.ch with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1)
id 1G4Y87-0005sa-00
for alt-assass...@moderators.isc.org; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 09:11:59 +0200
Received: (news@localhost)
by dispatch.concentric.net [XO Usenet Relay 1.0] id k6N74tp27169 ;
Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:04:55 -0400 (EDT)
Errors-To: <ne...@shell.core.com>
To: alt-assass...@moderators.isc.org
Path: news
From: Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: LHO's Leafletting and Judyth.
Date: 23 Jul 2006 03:04:55 EDT
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Lines: 222
Message-ID: <e9v72n$q...@dispatch.concentric.net>
References: <44bc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <1153211060.0...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <e9kgj5$7...@dispatch.concentric.net> <1153344168.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44beb9fe$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <1153390794.4...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <e9pop5$1...@dispatch.concentric.net> <1153564570.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.238.154.40
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <1153564570.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
One error was hers, the other mine.
She hadn't been introduced to Steele, and thus didn't know who he was,
just that he was passing out leaflets with Lee--and thus she picked out
the wrong guy from the film. Nothing to do with whether she was there.
The confusion about which woman she was--that was my error, not hers,
and she promptly corrected me. The "debunking" was an error--mine, not hers.
When you say I "worked on" her book and "helped to produce it," you seem
to imply more than was the case. I edited the End Notes, corrected
typos, input her corrections to the editor's final edit, and coordinated
the process of getting the book published. I didn't research the book,
despite some misleading posts here.
OF COURSE the book is "currently available." It was unavailable for
three weeks. Prior to that, it was selling well, and it has been
available again for a week and a half--as I posted--where have you been?
Anyone who wants a copy can obtain one relatively quickly. Another sign
that the book was available is that Leyden stopped harping on the claim
that it was "unobtainable."
As for Harry Livingstone, I said he edited and published the book. Where
did you get the idea that he "helped fund it"?
Chad Zimmerman is "providing" a number of things:
1) Vague false descriptions of the book.
2) "Paraphrases" which have turned out not to accurately portray what
the book actually says.
3) Quotes often taken out of context--as the twisting he did with the
"route" quote. It reads very differently in context. Often the context
to a quote is much more extensive than the quote--I have tried to state
the actual context without posting lengthy excerpts.
Accusing me of "holding back and limiting information" about Judyth
Baker's account is a genuinely bizarre charge to level at the person who
organized the publication of her account and evidence in the first
place. It is all available to anyone who wants it.
I'm glad you picked up Killing the Truth--in many ways, it is one of the
most valuable books in the case, due partly to the remarkable "Medical
Evidence Encyclopedia" it provides--the best summary ever done of the
medical evidence. It was done with the assistance of an important
researcher known to too few--Kathlee Fitzgerald, who worked with Harry
on several books, and who is currently updating her very valuable
reference work on the Secret Service.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
R J Johnson
As Barb and Chad noted, this wouldn't be the first time for Judyth and that
is a matter of public record. Just as Judyth was in N.O. working at the same
place as Oswald is important to understanding her story - so is her more
recent past, what has happened, what she has done.
This was pointed out to me by an ex-son-in-law when I first got to know him.
He indicated that Judyth had been involved in a number of what might be
considered shady dealings over the years. He specifically mentioned the
mixed breed mutts being peddled as pedigrees, a computer service of some
sort (have yet to find that one,) and that I should try to get in touch with
as many people as I could find that had been living near her over the years,
as they would surely have even more to offer.
He then told me about a holiday visit to her trailer where they were
appalled to find that she had been feeding the mice that also dwelled there
on her kitchen counter. When they opened the sofa bed (they were to sleep
on) they found a rat turds within. I have nothing beyond his word that this
actually happened. However, Robert Baker also told me of the same incident.
--- R. J. Johnson
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:o4f5c29up4lb68rug...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
had a clear copy of the "dress" photo to refer to for six years.
Martin Shackelford
On what basis do you claim that he ISN'T partisan, Barb. Geeez.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
repeatedly demands that we prove a negative, knowing that is next to
impossible to do with absolute certainty--it's one of his "win-win"
formulations.
This is what I base my opinion about the matter on:
1) Her children said she had NO JFK books AT ALL until after she wrote
her letters to her son. After that, she looked at Marina and Lee by
McMillan, and felt that it misrepresented him. They said that was the
ONLY JFK book she had until late 1999. She has said she looked at the
Warren Report at the library after seeing Marina and Lee. After she
wrote the letters to her son, he talked her into watching "JFK." These
were the only sources that she had even skimmed, much less "absorbed."
Her children noted that she never read nor watched anything about the
JFK assassination--and resisted watching "JFK" for 7 years. Even her
daughter who consistently opposed her mother going public confirmed
these things, as well as the fact that they knew from 1980 that she had
known Oswald in some capacity.
2) There has never been any indication at all that she had even heard of
Haslam's book prior to the Fall of 1999. I tested her with references
specific to Haslam in some e-mails, and she had no idea what I was
talking about--when she asked, I declined to explain at the time. When I
finally mentioned a bit about Haslam that Fall, she became very excited.
The correspondence from that year left me quite certain that she had not
previously been exposed to Haslam's book.
3) Her unfamiliarity with the literature in general was clearly evident
in her "gee whiz" response to things most researchers were well aware
of. She thought it was all brand new evidence.
4) Her receipt for her copy of Haslam is dated in late 1999.
5) She received it, read it, and promptly reviewed it on Amazon.com
(January 2000). As you may know, she has difficulty not commenting on
things immediately.
Her last child moved out of the home in 1998, which was why she decided
to finally talk to someone about 1963--and even then, she limited it at
first to letters to her son. No one else saw anything until that Fall,
when she showed copies of the letters to one of her professors.
Martin