Missing Person Alert
paul seaton
Shackelford - where is he?
There are a few questions to which Martin knows the answer, and the
answers could have been provided right after Martin read the post in which
i exposed Judy's email to a gaping world. The BEST, the all time BEST
answer would have been " O god !! I forgot all about that !!" . ..followed
by a (possibly public) period of reconsideration. The alternative would be
"Yes, well I knew all about that but [blah blah blah ] .." [ insert
reason for talking balls here. ].
I can't drag my sense of reality far enough to accomodate the idea that
Martin isn't reading this ng right now. And pondering an answer. Maybe
considering likely scenarios in which Sneaky was heavily involved ? An
email *interception* !! ??? Yes, let's *postulate* an email *interruption*
by mythical persons possessed of supernatural powers....
Martin : When you announced that Mary Ferrell didn't realise till April
7th that [ insert Sneaky .doc story] ... you were either aware of the
contents of the email i posted or you weren't. If you weren't, you might
explain why you don't read your emails. Particularly emails from JFK
Assassination Research BREAKTHROUGH Women , who were about to punch
McAdams firmly on the nose. So... it's got to be the former. Martin knew
all about this email, and blithely posted in contradiction of it.
We have the right to ask.... Martin : - What the hell is going on ??? ...
??
Dave Reitzes
This would be a perfect time for Jim Marrs to leap to Martin's
defense, wouldn't it?
But I e-mailed Marrs two weeks ago, and there's been no response.
On Jun 14, 12:20�am, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
wrote:
Dave
JLeyd...@aol.com
Well, I imagine he's still in Saginaw, MI, altho I have no idea what he's
up to. The collapse of the whole Judyth Baker fantasy probably hit him
pretty hard. He gave that woman some of the best years (nine) of his life
and she ended up insulting him on her blog. And because of her he cut
some old, established ties with JFK Lancer, the Mary Ferrell group, etc.
It's a long road back but I want him to know I'm there for him.
JGL
jfk...@gmail.com
Why would anyone have to do that? Martin is doing fine on his own.
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why do you think Martin is your personal dumping ground? It's
surprising he posts here at all with the high volume of attack posts.
JLeyd...@aol.com
You keep posting on Shackelford's behalf, Pam, since he apparently has
taken a powder, and I don't think you're doing him any favors. Just makes
him look like he's hiding behind a woman's skirts. Not a good image.
JGL
> surprising he posts here at all with the high volume of attack posts.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dave Reitzes
It's a safe bet that Martin will be back, and an even safer bet that
there will be no mea culpa on his part.
It's just not his style.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
Paul,
Please stop making Martin your personal dumping ground, and please
stop making Judyth the bucket.
Thank you.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > This would be a perfect time for Jim Marrs to leap to Martin's
> > defense, wouldn't it?
>
> > But I e-mailed Marrs two weeks ago, and there's been no response.
>
paul seaton
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d474167f-5926-4fe1...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Dave
// Dave, how long does he normally disappear for ?
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
Are you now requiring that people take laptops with them wherever they
go? Camping? To the Boundary Waters?
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
Just a few days. But this is a but of a special occasion.
Dave
Chuck Schuyler
The "Boundary Waters" reference may be a bit obscure to most of the
group, Pam.
jfk...@gmail.com
Guess we can say the same thing about Barb.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Jun 17, 3:04 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 12:20?am, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Shackelford - where is he?
>>
>> > There are a few questions to which Martin knows the answer, and the
>> > answers could have been provided right after Martin read the post in which
>> > i exposed Judy's email to a gaping world. The BEST, the all time BEST
>> > answer would have been " O god !! I forgot all about that !!" . ..followed
>> > by a (possibly public) period of reconsideration. The alternative would be
>> > "Yes, well I knew all about that but [blah blah blah ] .." ?[ insert
>> > reason for talking balls here. ].
>>
>> > I can't drag my sense of reality far enough to accomodate the idea that
>> > Martin isn't reading this ng right now. And pondering an answer. Maybe
>> > considering likely scenarios in which Sneaky was heavily involved ? An
>> > email *interception* !! ??? Yes, let's *postulate* an email *interruption*
>> > by mythical persons possessed of supernatural powers....
>>
>> > Martin : When you announced that Mary Ferrell didn't realise till April
>> > 7th that [ insert Sneaky .doc story] ... you were either aware of the
>> > contents of the email i posted or you weren't. If you weren't, you might
>> > explain why you don't read your emails. Particularly emails from JFK
>> > Assassination Research BREAKTHROUGH Women , who were about to punch
>> > McAdams firmly on the nose. So... it's got to be the former. Martin knew
>> > all about this email, and blithely posted in contradiction of it.
>>
>> > We have the right to ask.... Martin : - What the hell is going on ??? ...
>> > ??
>>
>> It's a safe bet that Martin will be back, and an even safer bet that
>> there will be no mea culpa on his part.
>>
>> It's just not his style.
>>
>> Dave
>
>Guess we can say the same thing about Barb.
Huh? I haven't gone anywhere..... I also have nothing to "mea culpa"
about. But it's nice to know you're thinking of me. :-)
And, say, since you have been in contact with judyth, could you ask
her what Oswald was wearing the day she met him in the post office ...
and also, how Oswald communicated with the Cuban girls at Reily?
Thanks.
jfk...@gmail.com
The Boundary Waters are a remote area of Northern Minnesota, known for
their beauty and wildlife. There are few, if any, trappings of modern
civilization there.
Dave Reitzes
> TOP POST
>
> This would be a perfect time for Jim Marrs to leap to Martin's
> defense, wouldn't it?
>
> But I e-mailed Marrs two weeks ago, and there's been no response.
Three weeks and counting.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jun 14, 11:33 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>> TOP POST
>>
>> This would be a perfect time for Jim Marrs to leap to Martin's
>> defense, wouldn't it?
>>
>> But I e-mailed Marrs two weeks ago, and there's been no response.
>
>
> Three weeks and counting.
>
Did you likewise e-mail Bugliosi with my list of his lies? Wonder why
Bugliosi will not respond?
paul seaton
If Marrs really believed MF was a 'judythite'... i can't see the down side
of him saying so. There might be a downside i haven't thought of ?
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ee570d1e-f637-45f6...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Dave Reitzes
> Dave Reitzes wrote:
> > On Jun 14, 11:33 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> TOP POST
>
> >> This would be a perfect time for Jim Marrs to leap to Martin's
> >> defense, wouldn't it?
>
> >> But I e-mailed Marrs two weeks ago, and there's been no response.
>
> > Three weeks and counting.
>
> Did you likewise e-mail Bugliosi with my list of his lies?
Bugliosi doesn't read fiction.
Dave
jfk279x
wrote:
> If Marrs really believed MF was a 'judythite'... i can't see the down side
> of him saying so. There might be a downside i haven't thought of ?
>
>
> news:ee570d1e-f637-45f6...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 14, 11:33 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > This would be a perfect time for Jim Marrs to leap to Martin's
> > defense, wouldn't it?
>
> > But I e-mailed Marrs two weeks ago, and there's been no response.
>
> Three weeks and counting.
What a bunch of layabouts. Have you nothing better to do than gossip?
Barb Junkkarinen
Does Pamela know someone interested in actual research and discussion
... and not in just gossiping about other posters ... is using her
computer?
On the other hand, Pamela ... uh ... Marrs was written about an area
of research being discussed as claims have been made about him, and
rather than gossip, the direct approach asking fror his comment was
used.
Oy.
Barb Junkkarinen
<paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>If Marrs really believed MF was a 'judythite'... i can't see the down side
>of him saying so. There might be a downside i haven't thought of ?
The only possible downside I can see would be if what went down
between Marrs and Mary, or between Marrs and Martin ... is other than
what we have been told here.
Barb :-)
paul seaton
"jfk279x" <jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:99ff0ad2-615e-4fe8...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
You may not recall, Pam, but Martin was claiming Marrs would confirm MF as
a Judyth believer. ( Ring any bells ? ) You may not have noticed, but
Marrs has not done so.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jun 23, 8:47�pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>> On Jun 14, 11:33 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> TOP POST
>>>> This would be a perfect time for Jim Marrs to leap to Martin's
>>>> defense, wouldn't it?
>>>> But I e-mailed Marrs two weeks ago, and there's been no response.
>>> Three weeks and counting.
>> Did you likewise e-mail Bugliosi with my list of his lies?
>
>
> Bugliosi doesn't read fiction.
>
Bugliosi writes fiction.
> Dave
>
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"paul seaton" <paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:4853...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7556ae41-24b1-4c16...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 14, 12:20?am, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>So much for your sense of reality.
>
>Martin
The reality is, as is typical, you fail to address the
issue/questions.
paul seaton
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:KJ_9k.30810$ZE5....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> So much for your sense of reality.
And the explanation for the paradox you left us without explaining is
?????
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> So much for your sense of reality.
>
> Martin
Martin can't explain the nonsense he's posted, so he resorts to
evasion and abuse.
> "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
Dave
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2008 14:31:06 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> >So much for your sense of reality.
>
> >Martin
>
> The reality is, as is typical, you fail to address the
> issue/questions.
You noticed that, too, eh?
\:^)
> >"paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
> >news:4853...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> >> Shackelford - where is he?
>
> >> There are a few questions to which Martin knows the answer, and the
> >> answers could have been provided right after Martin read the post in which
> >> i exposed Judy's email to a gaping world. The BEST, the all time BEST
> >> answer would have been " O god !! I forgot all about that !!" . ..followed
> >> by a (possibly public) period of reconsideration. The alternative would be
> >> "Yes, well I knew all about that but [blah blah blah ] .." �[ insert
> >> reason for talking balls here. ].
>
> >> I can't drag my sense of reality far enough to accomodate the idea that
> >> Martin isn't reading this ng right now. And pondering an answer. Maybe
> >> considering likely scenarios in which Sneaky was heavily involved ? An
> >> email *interception* !! ??? Yes, let's *postulate* an email *interruption*
> >> by mythical persons possessed of supernatural powers....
>
> >> Martin : When you announced that Mary Ferrell didn't realise till April
> >> 7th that [ insert Sneaky .doc story] ... you were either aware of the
> >> contents of the email i posted or you weren't. If you weren't, you might
> >> explain why you don't read your emails. Particularly emails from JFK
> >> Assassination Research BREAKTHROUGH Women , who were about to punch
> >> McAdams firmly on the nose. So... it's got to be the former. Martin knew
> >> all about this email, and blithely posted in contradiction of it.
>
> >> We have the right to ask.... Martin : - What the hell is going on ??? ...
> >> ??
Dave
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:KJ_9k.30810$ZE5....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> > So much for your sense of reality.
>
> And the explanation for the paradox you left us without explaining is
> ?????
Jeez, Paul, what do you expect Martin to say: "Oops, sorry, I
sometimes make stuff up"?
> > "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
Dave
Dave Reitzes
> On Jun 14, 12:20�am, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > There are a few questions to which Martin knows the answer, and the
> > answers could have been provided right after Martin read the post in which
> > i exposed Judy's email to a gaping world. The BEST, the all time BEST
> > answer would have been " O god !! I forgot all about that !!" . ..followed
> > by a (possibly public) period of reconsideration. The alternative would be
> > "Yes, well I knew all about that but [blah blah blah ] .." �[ insert
> > reason for talking balls here. ].
>
> > I can't drag my sense of reality far enough to accomodate the idea that
> > Martin isn't reading this ng right now. And pondering an answer. Maybe
> > considering likely scenarios in which Sneaky was heavily involved ? An
> > email *interception* !! ??? Yes, let's *postulate* an email *interruption*
> > by mythical persons possessed of supernatural powers....
>
> > Martin : When you announced that Mary Ferrell didn't realise till April
> > 7th that [ insert Sneaky .doc story] ... you were either aware of the
> > contents of the email i posted or you weren't. If you weren't, you might
> > explain why you don't read your emails. Particularly emails from JFK
> > Assassination Research BREAKTHROUGH Women , who were about to punch
> > McAdams firmly on the nose. So... it's got to be the former. Martin knew
> > all about this email, and blithely posted in contradiction of it.
>
> > We have the right to ask.... Martin : - What the hell is going on ??? ...
> > ??
>
> there will be no mea culpa on his part.
>
> It's just not his style.
>
> Dave
What a pity no one bet against me.
Dave \:^)
Martin Shackelford
you.
Martin
"paul seaton" <paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:4869...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
jfk279x
wrote:
> I don't think a long-planned visit to my family required an explanation to
> you.
You are quite mistaken, Martin. You have to produce documentation of
your whereabouts during that time and proof that you did not have
access to the internet, or else you will be greeted with even more
claims that you are running away. Surely you know that by now. :-0
And BTW you're sure to catch some heat for all the threads on Judyth
initiated by Barb and Reitzes during your absense. They are your
fault too!
>
> Martin
>
> "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4869...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
>
> > "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >news:KJ_9k.30810$ZE5....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >> So much for your sense of reality.
>
> > And the explanation for the paradox you left us without explaining is
> > ?????
>
> >> Martin
>
> >> "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
paul seaton
>I don't think a long-planned visit to my family required an explanation to
>you.
It wasn't your absence i was hoping for an explanation of. It was that old
business with Judyth, Mary Ferrell, & an email you were cc'd on.
But of course you know that, don't you ?
Decided to pretend all that never happened Martin ?
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Jul 1, 10:21 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>> I don't think a long-planned visit to my family required an explanation to
>> you.
>
>You are quite mistaken, Martin. You have to produce documentation of
>your whereabouts during that time and proof that you did not have
>access to the internet, or else you will be greeted with even more
>claims that you are running away. Surely you know that by now. :-0
>
>And BTW you're sure to catch some heat for all the threads on Judyth
>initiated by Barb and Reitzes during your absense. They are your
>fault too!
" Ah, but that is their raison d'etre, to waste time. Never to discuss
the evidence." [Pamela McElwain-Brown, 2-9-08]
Barb :-)
Steve Thomas
wrote:
> I don't think a long-planned visit to my family required an explanation to
> you.
you dont think you owe an explanation for promoting the Judyth Baker
fiasco either, so i guess the same would go for a family visit
>
> Martin
>
> "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4869...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >news:KJ_9k.30810$ZE5....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >> So much for your sense of reality.
>
> > And the explanation for the paradox you left us without explaining is
> > ?????
>
> >> Martin
>
> >> "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
> >>> ??- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
paul seaton
> On Jul 1, 10:21 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> I don't think a long-planned visit to my family required an explanation
>> to
>> you.
>
> You are quite mistaken, Martin. You have to produce documentation of
> your whereabouts during that time and proof that you did not have
> access to the internet, or else you will be greeted with even more
> claims that you are running away. Surely you know that by now. :-0
>
> And BTW you're sure to catch some heat for all the threads on Judyth
> initiated by Barb and Reitzes during your absense. They are your
> fault too!
Your memory is obviously as short as Martin's, Pam. Martin vanished
(purely by chance I'm sure) just when it became obvious that he was either
very confused or ..well... I am not allowed to suggest the other
possibility. To remind you, Martin was claiming that Mary ferrell didn't
know the true contents of 'judyth.doc' until Judyth read it to her April
7th 2002. He still has to reconcile this with the fact that Judyth emailed
both Martin & Mary F on March 11th 2002, complaining about the specific
contents of 'judyth.doc'. ("negative statements concerning my sanity, my
veracity, my witness, and my character.")
Until an explanation is forthcoming, the only possible (charitable)
explanation is that Martin is VERY confused.
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
That's step one. Step two will be waiting a short while before
insisting that he ALREADY DID explain the whole thing to you. You may
ask for a URL to his earlier message, and he'll say he already told
you, and it will go 'round and 'round forever.
He's done this numerous times before:
http://www.jfk-online.com/judythshack.html
He sees nothing wrong with such behavior, and expresses shock and
anger that people won't simply take his word for things.
Dave
Martin Shackelford
It's been fun watching the gyrations here as you try to turn it into a
flight.
The timing had nothing to do with anything or anyone here.
Martin
"paul seaton" <paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:486a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> I don't think a long-planned visit to my family required an explanation to
> you.
>
> Martin
What about the stories you were caught making up about Mary Ferrell?
> "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4869...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >news:KJ_9k.30810$ZE5....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >> So much for your sense of reality.
>
> > And the explanation for the paradox you left us without explaining is
> > ?????
>
> >> Martin
>
> >> "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
Dave
paul seaton
>I left on a trip that had been planned for quite some time.
> It's been fun watching the gyrations here as you try to turn it into a
> flight.
> The timing had nothing to do with anything or anyone here.
Once again, a content free top post, answering a question i didn't ask.
Anthony Marsh
> I left on a trip that had been planned for quite some time.
> It's been fun watching the gyrations here as you try to turn it into a
> flight.
> The timing had nothing to do with anything or anyone here.
>
> Martin
>
Typical of Team McAdams to accuse you of running away, just as they
accused Judyth of running away.
Anthony Marsh
Is there any mathematical chance that you'll simply pay attention the
first time?
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Dave Reitzes wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 1:24?pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
>> wrote:
>>> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:O2jak.8665$89....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>
>>>> I don't think a long-planned visit to my family required an explanation to
>>>> you.
>>> It wasn't your absence i was hoping for an explanation of. It was that old
>>> business with Judyth, Mary Ferrell, & an email you were cc'd on.
>>> ?But of course you know that, don't you ?
>>> Decided to pretend all that never happened Martin ?
>>
>>
>> That's step one. Step two will be waiting a short while before
>> insisting that he ALREADY DID explain the whole thing to you. You may
>> ask for a URL to his earlier message, and he'll say he already told
>> you, and it will go 'round and 'round forever.
>>
>> He's done this numerous times before:
>>
>> http://www.jfk-online.com/judythshack.html
>>
>> He sees nothing wrong with such behavior, and expresses shock and
>> anger that people won't simply take his word for things.
>>
>> Dave
>
>Is there any mathematical chance that you'll simply pay attention the
>first time?
Any mathematical chance you might keep up with a topic and know what
the hell you are talking about before you start sputtering the same
insult in multiple posts?
Didn't think so.
Martin was given chance after chance after chance to correct his
position that Mary Ferrell knew NOTHING of the contents of the email
attachment until the tape recorder raid of April 7th. Martin didn't
budge even when Paul pointedly asked Martin that if there had been an
email from Judyth to Mary in March, that Martin was cc'd on, that
asked about all these horrible things from the attachment, Mary would
have, of course, known. Typical eveasion from Martin in response.
So, ultimately, Paul posted the dang e-mail.
Martin made one insulting remark not addressing it ... and left.
Martin has NOT addressed it any "first time" ... and it
's not shaping up to look like there will BE a "first time." He's
avoiding it like the plague ... that's how it looks anyway.
>
>>
paul seaton
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zuOdnQ_Bx-sxV_bV...@comcast.com...
pay attention to WHAT the first time ?
>
Anthony Marsh
>
> "jfk279x" <jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44e0c4dc-3743-4a71...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 1, 10:21 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>> I don't think a long-planned visit to my family required an
>>> explanation to
>>> you.
>>
>> You are quite mistaken, Martin. You have to produce documentation of
>> your whereabouts during that time and proof that you did not have
>> access to the internet, or else you will be greeted with even more
>> claims that you are running away. Surely you know that by now. :-0
>>
>> And BTW you're sure to catch some heat for all the threads on Judyth
>> initiated by Barb and Reitzes during your absense. They are your
>> fault too!
>
> Your memory is obviously as short as Martin's, Pam. Martin vanished
> (purely by chance I'm sure) just when it became obvious that he was
> either very confused or ..well... I am not allowed to suggest the other
> possibility. To remind you, Martin was claiming that Mary ferrell didn't
> know the true contents of 'judyth.doc' until Judyth read it to her April
> 7th 2002. He still has to reconcile this with the fact that Judyth
> emailed both Martin & Mary F on March 11th 2002, complaining about the
> specific contents of 'judyth.doc'. ("negative statements concerning my
> sanity, my veracity, my witness, and my character.")
>
Then why did you suddenly stop posting when I pointed out your errors?
Anthony Marsh
> On 1 Jul 2008 13:23:28 -0400, jfk279x <jfk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 1, 10:21 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>> I don't think a long-planned visit to my family required an explanation to
>>> you.
>> You are quite mistaken, Martin. You have to produce documentation of
>> your whereabouts during that time and proof that you did not have
>> access to the internet, or else you will be greeted with even more
>> claims that you are running away. Surely you know that by now. :-0
>>
>> And BTW you're sure to catch some heat for all the threads on Judyth
>> initiated by Barb and Reitzes during your absense. They are your
>> fault too!
>
> " Ah, but that is their raison d'etre, to waste time. Never to discuss
> the evidence." [Pamela McElwain-Brown, 2-9-08]
>
You need help constructing your insults. Looks like you quoted something I
said, not Pamela.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>> On 1 Jul 2008 13:23:28 -0400, jfk279x <jfk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 10:21 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I don't think a long-planned visit to my family required an explanation to
>>>> you.
>>> You are quite mistaken, Martin. You have to produce documentation of
>>> your whereabouts during that time and proof that you did not have
>>> access to the internet, or else you will be greeted with even more
>>> claims that you are running away. Surely you know that by now. :-0
>>>
>>> And BTW you're sure to catch some heat for all the threads on Judyth
>>> initiated by Barb and Reitzes during your absense. They are your
>>> fault too!
>>
>> " Ah, but that is their raison d'etre, to waste time. Never to discuss
>> the evidence." [Pamela McElwain-Brown, 2-9-08]
>>
>
>You need help constructing your insults. Looks like you quoted something I
>said, not Pamela.
Mea culpa, I grabbed the wrong line. You two are pretty
interchangeable anyway ... she just rah-tahs anything you say. :-)
Dave Reitzes
> I left on a trip that had been planned for quite some time.
> It's been fun watching the gyrations here as you try to turn it into a
> flight.
> The timing had nothing to do with anything or anyone here.
>
> Martin
That's fascinating, but, of course, you're still evading the issue:
To remind you, Martin was claiming that Mary ferrell didn't
> > know the true contents of 'judyth.doc' until Judyth read it to her April
> > 7th 2002. He still has to reconcile this with the fact that Judyth emailed
> > both Martin & Mary F on March 11th 2002, complaining about the specific
> > contents of 'judyth.doc'. ("negative statements concerning my sanity, my
> > veracity, my witness, and my character.")
>
> > Until an explanation is forthcoming, the only possible (charitable)
> > explanation is that Martin is VERY confused.
And the more Martin evades the issue, the more difficult it becomes to
accept such a charitable explanation.
> "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
>
> news:486a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "jfk279x" <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Dave
Steve Thomas
> Martin Shackelford wrote:
> > I left on a trip that had been planned for quite some time.
> > It's been fun watching the gyrations here as you try to turn it into a
> > flight.
> > The timing had nothing to do with anything or anyone here.
>
> > Martin
>
> Typical of Team McAdams to accuse you of running away, just as they
> accused Judyth of running away.
Typical of Team Judyth to not answer a question when they get
caught in a lie. Typical for you to back them up as well.
>
>
>
> > "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
> >news:486a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >> "jfk279x" <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Anthony Marsh
I thought not!
>
>
>>
>
>
paul seaton
When i trashed your whole CIA theory, why did you start crying ?
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:39a36c0a-c2a6-4c4c...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 1, 11:21?am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> >>> "Yes, well I knew all about that but [blah blah blah ] .." ?[ insert
jfk279x
You could try to take a more objective view. There could have been
confusion over what information Judyth had vs what Mary thought she should
have had that might have taken time to resolve. Taking a narrow viewpoint
results in the fallacy of false alternatives.
paul seaton
I thought not!
##what are you talking about ?
paul seaton
>I didn't make up anything, Dave.
You made something up, Martin.
Dave Reitzes
> I didn't make up anything, Dave.
>
> Martin
Don't be so modest, Martin. Your story about the late Mary Ferrell and the
bizarre cast of conspirators surrounding her was quite inventive. And your
claim about an exciting "new CIA document" supposedly linking Clay Shaw to
the CIA certainly made some waves at the Nuthouse at the time. And your
story about an explosive document a researcher supposedly showed you at a
convention -- wow, I mean, that really took guts, especially when Walt
Brown had already written an entire article about the fact that the
researcher in question didn't actually have the document, and the
researcher confirmed this to me himself. (Sure, you implied I was a liar
for saying so, but you've never e-mailed him to verify it for yourself,
have you? No, of course you haven't.)
Any newcomers out there wondering what I'm talking about? Check out:
http://www.jfk-online.com/judythshack.html
My only question at this point is, how are you going to top yourself? Your
Ferrell yarn is going to be a hard act to follow.
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
Steve Thomas
>
> - Show quoted text -
the only false alternative is that Mary didnt write the email and/or
doc.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"paul seaton" <paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:486d...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Martin Shackelford
cite your own website in support of it.
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4406ba79-0b8f-4db3...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Gee--third repetition of the falsehood. Do you think that makes it true?
What's obvious is that you are evading the issue of what you stated
about Mary Ferrell not knowing what was in the attachment until April
7th ... and you affirmed that several times, then Paul, posted the
rather strong, somewhat threatening and bullying e-mail Judyth sent to
Mary, and you were cc'd on it, from March .... then you disappeared
after one derogatory (and wrong) remark about Debra. Now you come back
acting like you don't know what anyone is talking about, using your
usual too many e-mails exuse, and totally avoiding the issue.
Judyth's e-mail made it quite clear what was in the attachment. This
was a big deal in Team Judyth land. And I don't think anyone is going
to believe for one second that you didn't recall the e-mail,
especially after Paul basically spelled it out for you, you may have
just figured he really didn't have it or really wouldn't post it.
But, let's assume for a hafl a second that you didn't recall the
e-mail (fat chance!) ... if that were the case, then it demonstrates
rather well just how wholly unreliable your adamant assertions and
claims of fact are. So either you made something up ... or your claims
of fact about Judyth just cannot be relied on....and either way, you
are evasive rather than forthcoming.
Mary Ferrell was a witness to Judyth. Debra was a witness to Judyth.
Your comment on 6-4-08 in the Queen of Spades thread sounded noble
enough, but you apparently apply it rather selectively.
"I take seriously vicious attempts to discredit a witness.
Martin"
Amazingly, you've managed to further discredit yourself.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 3, 6:29�pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> I didn't make up anything, Dave.
>>
>> Martin
>
>
> Don't be so modest, Martin. Your story about the late Mary Ferrell and the
> bizarre cast of conspirators surrounding her was quite inventive. And your
> claim about an exciting "new CIA document" supposedly linking Clay Shaw to
> the CIA certainly made some waves at the Nuthouse at the time. And your
> story about an explosive document a researcher supposedly showed you at a
> convention -- wow, I mean, that really took guts, especially when Walt
> Brown had already written an entire article about the fact that the
> researcher in question didn't actually have the document, and the
> researcher confirmed this to me himself. (Sure, you implied I was a liar
> for saying so, but you've never e-mailed him to verify it for yourself,
> have you? No, of course you haven't.)
>
What document? Show me this document.
Anthony Marsh
No crying. You did not trash my theories.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I'm sure everyone continues to be excited when you make a claim, and then
>cite your own website in support of it.
THIS is downright precious! ROTFL!
Dave Reitzes
> Dave Reitzes wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 6:29�pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> I didn't make up anything, Dave.
>
> >> Martin
>
> > Don't be so modest, Martin. Your story about the late Mary Ferrell and the
> > bizarre cast of conspirators surrounding her was quite inventive. And your
> > claim about an exciting "new CIA document" supposedly linking Clay Shaw to
> > the CIA certainly made some waves at the Nuthouse at the time. And your
> > story about an explosive document a researcher supposedly showed you at a
> > convention -- wow, I mean, that really took guts, especially when Walt
> > Brown had already written an entire article about the fact that the
> > researcher in question didn't actually have the document, and the
> > researcher confirmed this to me himself. (Sure, you implied I was a liar
> > for saying so, but you've never e-mailed him to verify it for yourself,
> > have you? No, of course you haven't.)
>
> What document? Show me this document.
\:^)
As Martin is fond of saying, Tony, try reading for comprehension.
Dave Reitzes
> On 4 Jul 2008 12:49:42 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> >I'm sure everyone continues to be excited when you make a claim, and then
> >cite your own website in support of it.
>
> THIS is downright precious! ROTFL!
That's our Martin! \:^)
paul seaton
That's it, you just keep saying that to yourself Tony.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Steve Thomas
> On 4 Jul 2008 12:49:42 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> >I'm sure everyone continues to be excited when you make a claim, and then
> >cite your own website in support of it.
>
> THIS is downright precious! ROTFL!
Mabey Martin should get a website, that way all those emails he can't
find could be cataloged.
>
>
>
>
>
> >Martin
> >Dave- Hide quoted text -
Martin Shackelford
private correspondence without permission.
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:00f25eb7-8ae3-4d75...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Steve Thomas
> You confuse me with McAdams. I'm not the one who uses websites to post
> private correspondence without permission.
Of course you dont, cause if you did you would have to actually be
100% honest about their content.
>
> Martin
>
> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dave Reitzes
> On Jun 14, 11:33 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > This would be a perfect time for Jim Marrs to leap to Martin's
> >defense, wouldn't it?
>
> > But I e-mailed Marrs two weeks ago, and there's been no response.
>
> Three weeks and counting.
Over a month now.
> > On Jun 14, 12:20�am, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Shackelford - where is he?
>
> > > There are a few questions to whichMartinknows the answer, and the
> > > answers could have been provided right afterMartinread the post in which
> > > i exposed Judy's email to a gaping world. The BEST, the all time BEST
> > > answer would have been " O god !! I forgot all about that !!" . ..followed
> > > by a (possibly public) period of reconsideration. The alternative would be
> > > "Yes, well I knew all about that but [blah blah blah ] .." �[ insert
> > > reason for talking balls here. ].
>
> > > I can't drag my sense of reality far enough to accomodate the idea that
> > >Martinisn't reading this ng right now. And pondering an answer. Maybe
> > > considering likely scenarios in which Sneaky was heavily involved ? An
> > > email *interception* !! ??? Yes, let's *postulate* an email *interruption*
> > > by mythical persons possessed of supernatural powers....
>
> > >Martin: When you announced that Mary Ferrell didn't realise till April
> > > 7th that [ insert Sneaky .doc story] ... you were either aware of the
> > > contents of the email i posted or you weren't. If you weren't, you might
> > > explain why you don't read your emails. Particularly emails from JFK
> > > Assassination Research BREAKTHROUGH Women , who were about to punch
> > > McAdams firmly on the nose. So... it's got to be the former.Martinknew
> > > all about this email, and blithely posted in contradiction of it.
>
> > > We have the right to ask....Martin: - What the hell is going on ??? ...
> > > ??
Dave