When will Judyth's art...
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
without countless advertisements and pop-ups...OR
Net her enough income that she doens't need to use Lee Oswald as a vehicle
to sell her art? Ya got to see the bleeding mountain...
http://judyth.freehomepage.com/
Chad
Martin Shackelford
nothing to do with the JFK assassination.
Martin
Glenn Sarlitto
"Dr. Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:43c86206$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
hehehehe...
Oooops! "G R A E T" Tragedy?
JLeyd...@aol.com
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> I am sorry that you have chosen to engage in a personal attack which has
> nothing to do with the JFK assassination.
>
> Martin
But Judyth has something to do with the assassination, doesn't she?
Oswald discussed it with her by phone a dozen or more times, or so she
says. But she did nothing to try to stop it, nothing. By the way,
how's the book coming? A month ago you told us Judyth had been offered
a book contract and the ms. was edited and ready to go.
JGL
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
that I referred to? Didn't I mention that she is using her notoriety as the
alleged mistress of Oswald to sell her wares?
In your mind, this isn't relevant to others?
Fact: she is using her alleged notoriety to sell her wares. Her notoriety is
the alleged mistress of JFK's assassin.
If anything is on topic, this is.
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:dqa4lv$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
wco
tomnln
Determined by the "Neccessity" to Undermine the Credibility of the Poster.
The More the poster destroys the Lone Nut Theory, The More the
"Neccessity" to to Undermine him/her.
EXAMPLE:
When I posted page 560 of the WCR Exonerated Oswald by the paraffin test
done at 2:50 p.m.
WCR Supporters "Ignored" negative test on Oswald's cheeks,
They Jumped on me because, that particular page does NOT state 2:50 p.m.
There are More personal discussions here than Citations for
Evidence/Terstimony.
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:dqa4lv$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Grizzlie Antagonist
"My works have become excellent investments".
In other words, they haven't ALWAYS been excellent investments. But
they have BECOME so.
Well gee, is there anything in particular that she's been doing
recently that has MADE her works such excellent investments? Or is it
just that the art world has finally come to recognize her talent on its
own merits?
Martin Shackelford
Peter Fokes
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>It's a diversion from discussing evidence, just like "Grizzlie's" nonsense.
>
>Martin
I don;t believe Grizzlie or tomnln are CTs. They are probably LNs
having fun.
PF
Martin Shackelford
failed Mortal Error, and decided to latch onto this diversion.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8bcyf.284108$0l5.179125@dukeread06...
>I am Proud to say that the "Degree/Level/Intensity of Personal Attacks is
>Determined by the "Neccessity" to Undermine the Credibility of the Poster.
>
> The More the poster destroys the Lone Nut Theory, The More the
> "Neccessity" to to Undermine him/her.
>
> EXAMPLE:
> When I posted page 560 of the WCR Exonerated Oswald by the paraffin test
> done at 2:50 p.m.
>
> WCR Supporters "Ignored" negative test on Oswald's cheeks,
> They Jumped on me because, that particular page does NOT state 2:50 p.m.
That's probably because there has been much written about the parrafin tests
in these
past 40+ years and most people realize that they were essentially worthless.
Therefore,
we ignore it because it is a non-issue. Might I suggest that you read some
more about
paraffin tests, particularly those in 1963.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> It's a diversion from discussing evidence, just like "Grizzlie's" nonsense.
Martin, I know you are intelligent enough to know what "evidence" is,
and you are smart enough to know that things like this provide subject
matter of evidentiary value pertaining to the late arriving mistress of
LHO. Ever heard the word 'motive'?
It's just like Beverly Oliver's late arrival and her gains from her
tales. Those tidbits provide a nice, full history regarding the person
that is trying to rewrite history, such as Judyth.
As you know, investigators look at Judyth's tales and have to take into
consideration motive.
If she could pedal her wares without ranting about LHO, we might see
some value in it. However, she's utilized a plethora of free hosting
services to drag her story to light. She says she isn't into it for
money, but everything she does speaks to the contrary. Now, she's
dragging the LHO saga into her art...which allegedly have become good
investments.
Chad
Grizzlie Antagonist
Peter Fokes wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2006 11:16:10 -0500, Martin Shackelford
> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >It's a diversion from discussing evidence, just like "Grizzlie's" nonsense.
> >
> >Martin
>
> I don;t believe Grizzlie or tomnln are CTs. They are probably LNs
> having fun.
For my part, that's an understatement.
Haven't I made clear my feelings about CT's? What makes you think that
I'm trying to disguise those feelings?
And I have more "fun" when I can FULLY express those feelings.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Apparently you got tired of not being able to refute "Mortal Error" and
msh...@concentric.net
opinions about Judyth's mention on her art website of her relationship
to Lee Oswald are not evidence one way or another about that
relationship. I am tired of you, and McAdams, and others constantly
harping on her non-JFK websites to make false implications about her
account of her relationship with Lee Oswald. For that, there is direct
evidence.
The idea that she claimed a relationship with Oswald as a scheme to
sell her art work is completely absurd.
It is true that a late-arriving witness deserves scrutiny--and Judyth
has received considerable scrutiny by quite a few people who have
looked at her evidence. Some of the results:
1) Nigel Turner ended up shooting 40 hours of film footage of her and
including her in his "Men Who Killed Kennedy" series in her own
program.
2) Howard Liebengood reported that she was the genuine article.
3) Don Hewitt and others at "60 Minutes" have said the same thing.
4) I found her evidence convincing.
5) Howard Platzmann found her evidence convincing.
6) Other researchers whose names are not presently public have found
her evidence convincing, and some have quietly assisted her, and
provided additional supporting evidence.
You folks keep accusing Judyth of "rewriting history," but she is only
reporting what she experienced herself.
As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out of Beverly Oliver.
You' mention "motive" twice, as though that empty mantra means
something. The motive you imply, as noted, isn't credible.
As for "Now, she's dragging the LHO saga into her art," the website has
been around for quite a long time now--and your crowd has referred to
it in the past in equally weak fashion.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Tomnln is a CT of longstanding.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
much behind the research developments.
Martin
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Grizzlie is an LNer with a slight twist.
I've resisted the LN label, but come to think of it, I guess that's a
fairly accurate description.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> I refuted Mortal Error a long time ago--as have others. You are very
> much behind the research developments.
>
> Martin
"Eppur si muove" ("And yet it moves") - Galileo Galilei
Chad Zimmerman
"Here you see Lee in his undershirt, beaten and cut. No doctor examined
him. No lawyer came forward to assist him, even though he was charged
before a judge in two separate hearings with two separate murders--that of
a police officer, and of the President. He asked for a lawyer. No lawyer
was supplied. His words were not recorded: we must rely on the reports of
those who interrogated him, and their reports did not always match. Lee
Oswald has been the ONLY accused assassin who EVER DENIED the deed. Lee
said, "I didn't shoot anyone,"' and he also cried out,"I am a patsy!" Two
days after his arrest, he was shot down in the presence of over 70 police
officers by the gangster Jack Ruby, a local nightclub owner and bagman for
Godfather Carlos Marcello. I've painted a portrait of Lee. It doesn't
resemble the beaten prisoner. It reveals the man I knew. I've painted a
very different portrait, indeed. Similarly, my many life experiences
influence the way I look at flowers, wolves, religious figures,
celebrities. I paint them from personal knowledge or interviews. Or from
raw experience. I have lived in the cities I have painted. The paintings I
create from such experiences aren't the usual. They are, indeed, beyond
the ordinary. beyond the pale."
What on earth was I thinking?
Chad
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:1137405449.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Chad Zimmerman
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:1137405449.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I am quite aware of what evidence is--and I am equally aware that your
> opinions about Judyth's mention on her art website of her relationship
> to Lee Oswald are not evidence one way or another about that
> relationship.
No, they're evidence of Judyth's MOTIVATION! Figure it out, Martin.
Whether it's Cream Dogs, the museum or Art, ....it's about $$$$$$$$
I am tired of you, and McAdams, and others constantly
> harping on her non-JFK websites to make false implications about her
> account of her relationship with Lee Oswald. For that, there is direct
> evidence.
Non-JFK website!?! You can't be talking about the art site where she
proclaims his innocence, right?
Her opening caption mentions this enduring tragedy in 1963...was that
related to JFK?
Is this related to JFK?
"Here on this page, I have placed a famous photo of Lee Harvey Oswald. I
knew him personally -- he was an innocent man."
> The idea that she claimed a relationship with Oswald as a scheme to
> sell her art work is completely absurd.
Yeah, transparent...just like her numerous regurgitations of her story on
every damned site she can post something on.
> It is true that a late-arriving witness deserves scrutiny--and Judyth
> has received considerable scrutiny by quite a few people who have
> looked at her evidence. Some of the results:
> 1) Nigel Turner ended up shooting 40 hours of film footage of her and
> including her in his "Men Who Killed Kennedy" series in her own
> program.
Yeah, and Nigel has how many other episodes with conflicting stories?
You realize that only ONE of them could be right...right?
If he were interested in accuracy and truth, he'd have only produced ONE!
> 2) Howard Liebengood reported that she was the genuine article.
Are you talking about Frist's chief of staff? How'd he know, was he there?
> 3) Don Hewitt and others at "60 Minutes" have said the same thing.
Yet didn't do the show...
> 4) I found her evidence convincing.
Go figure.
> 5) Howard Platzmann found her evidence convincing.
Go figure.
> 6) Other researchers whose names are not presently public have found
> her evidence convincing, and some have quietly assisted her, and
> provided additional supporting evidence.
Every CT book sells and convinces many of its readers. That doesn't change
the fact that ONLY ONE event took place.
> You folks keep accusing Judyth of "rewriting history," but she is only
> reporting what she experienced herself.
Yeah, with various changes along the way...
> As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out of Beverly Oliver.
Of course, there are those that just want to believe...
> You' mention "motive" twice, as though that empty mantra means
> something. The motive you imply, as noted, isn't credible.
Money is the best motivator, Martin. Are you saying that money isn't a
credible motivator?
She's tried to sell her book, her art....god knows what else.
> As for "Now, she's dragging the LHO saga into her art," the website has
> been around for quite a long time now--and your crowd has referred to
> it in the past in equally weak fashion.
And I suppose you are the jury as to what is weak, eh Martin? Judyth's
entire saga is growing weak.
Have you ever read the transcript from her blathering on Black-Op
radio...OY!
Chad
Martin Shackelford
You might want to try to avoid stereotyping art websites, though.
Martin
Grizzlie Antagonist
> 2) Howard Liebengood reported that she was the genuine article.
> 3) Don Hewitt and others at "60 Minutes" have said the same thing.
> 4) I found her evidence convincing.
> 5) Howard Platzmann found her evidence convincing.
> 6) Other researchers whose names are not presently public have found
> her evidence convincing
How many people found Anna Anderson "convincing" as Anastasia during
her lifetime?
Martin Shackelford
and I don't find your speculation credible. In several situations, where
one choice would have brought money, and another wouldn't, she has gone
with the choice that brought no money. Nigel Turner is one example. He
saw her documentation, you haven't.
Howard Liebengood was involved in the intelligence investigations of the
mid-1970s, on Sen. Howard Baker's staff. He told us that documents he
saw during his investigation at the CIA supported what Judyth was
telling us. He examined material relating to her much more thoroughly
than you or McAdams have.
Don Hewitt stated in a broadcast interview that he STILL wants to do the
show.
I prefer to go with the evidence. I've seen it.
Martin
Chad Zimmerman
should abandon Judyth altogether?
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:dqcs9u$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Martin Shackelford
whatever other sideshows you creats, you avoid focusing on her value as
a witness. Further supporting evidence has recently been provided by
other researchers. Her account has provided a number of people with
fruitful leads.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Anna Anderson didn't have extensive documentation
But she was supposedly able to describe things that only Anastasia
could have known about.
> of her experiences.
>
> Martin
Dear Diary:
What a shock! My boyfriend just told me that his uncle's employer
planned to kill the President of the United States at the exact hour of
his own pending acquittal just to show how much power he has - and then
to frame my boyfriend as the patsy.
Witnesses who know too much will die mysteriously over the years, but
as of 2006, I'll have mysteriously survived the bloodletting.
Sincerely, Judyth Baker
October 1963 (carbon dated)
Chad Zimmerman
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:dr4v2e$h...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Clearly, you have you own opinion about Judyth's motivation.
Yes, I do.
>I know her,
And Jesus knew Judas.
> and I don't find your speculation credible.
That's a surprise.
In several situations, where
> one choice would have brought money, and another wouldn't, she has gone
> with the choice that brought no money. Nigel Turner is one example. He saw
> her documentation, you haven't.
I may never. I may always know why that is.
> Howard Liebengood was involved in the intelligence investigations of the
> mid-1970s, on Sen. Howard Baker's staff. He told us that documents he saw
> during his investigation at the CIA supported what Judyth was telling us.
Oh, okay. I would imagine that, like most of what Judyth says, most of it
is found in books somewhere...which is where she got it after many years
of digging. Funny how it all just ties together with other published
accounts. Wonder why.
>He examined material relating to her much more thoroughly than you or
>McAdams have.
> Don Hewitt stated in a broadcast interview that he STILL wants to do the
> show.
> I prefer to go with the evidence. I've seen it.
I'm sure there is plenty of evidence of things she talks about, Martin.
She's been diggin' and weavin' for years. Would you expect anything less?
I hope the evidence is a lot better than a bunch of letters that she wrote
to Lee that don't have his name on them and have corners torn off of them.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> No, I'm suggesting that by focusing on her art page,
Where she injects LHO yet again.
her dog page,
Which has some interesting history to it.
and
> whatever other sideshows you creats,
Martin, Martin, Martin...as you know...I didn't create the webpages. Tsk,
tsk.
you avoid focusing on her value as
> a witness.
Value as a witness? She worked at Reily. Great. Next.
Further supporting evidence has recently been provided by
> other researchers.
"Supporting evidence"? Does any of it actually mention her name? Is any of
that evidence stuff she could've located in the past 20 years?
Her account has provided a number of people with
> fruitful leads.
Yeah, fruitful. Like the 87,000 different conspiracy theories of one
event, all of which have *fruitful* leads.
Chad
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
though they have some bearing on whether or not she is telling the
truth--they don't.
Her value as a witness goes far beyond simply working at Reily, but of
course you prefer John McAdams' misinformed version of things.
Once again, you make the false implication that she has been studying
the case for "twenty years." You have no evidence for this nonsense. You
have substituted bias for data, eager to discredit a witness before
you've even reviewed her evidence.
Rush to Judgement returns.
Martin
JLeyd...@aol.com
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> No, I'm suggesting that by focusing on her art page, her dog page, and
> whatever other sideshows you creats, you avoid focusing on her value as
> a witness. Further supporting evidence has recently been provided by
> other researchers. Her account has provided a number of people with
> fruitful leads.
>
> Martin
Enough already with this talk of Judyth's "value as a witness" and
providing "fruitful leads" to other (always unnamed) researchers. Get
the book out already like you've been promising for going on seven
years now. I'm starting to doubt you.
JGL
Martin Shackelford
You have no idea why you haven't seen her documentation. The truth, when
it can be shared, is quite an interesting story.
Imagine all you want, but very little of what is in Judyth's book can be
found in other books. Her account differs significantly from most CT
accounts, as a matter of fact.
There were, of course, no "years of digging." Her children report that
she had no books on the assassination at all until 1998, and then only
two for quite a while, the Warren Report and Marina and Lee--were those
the books you believe she "fit herself into"? They also report that she
AVOIDED anything about the assassination until around that time. Both
her son and her daughter have verified this.
Your claim that "she's been diggin' and weavin' for years" is simply
false. Raising a false assumption to the level of conclusion makes one
wonder what sort of PhD. you have.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
JLeyd...@aol.com
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> You've never NOT doubted me. Nothing new there.
>
> Martin
Still nothing new on the book, huh? You know I have a friend who has a
book near publication (a couple of months away) and it's already listed on
Amazon.com for future orders. By contrast, all we get from Team Judyth
(you're the last man standing) is empty promises -- seven years of them.
JGL
Chad Zimmerman
Stereotyping art websites? Is that the best defense you have?
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> The "Judas" reference is pretty pitiful, Chad.
> You have no idea why you haven't seen her documentation. The truth, when
> it can be shared, is quite an interesting story.
Key word. Story.
> Imagine all you want, but very little of what is in Judyth's book can be
> found in other books.
No kidding. It is because she goes into massive lengths to tie in little
pieces that have been published elsewhere. For instance:
We might know that Lee had a pair of shower shoes. We might know that
Judyth has a pair of his shower shoes.
Then, we'll have 8 pages of unconfirmable junk that tells the *story* of
how her shower shoes were Oswald's and how she came to get them.
Think about it. 2 sentences are known. The rest isn't. Therefore, much of
what is in the book isn't found anywhere else. This is not a surprise.
Her account differs significantly from most CT
> accounts, as a matter of fact.
Yeah, because it is a hodge podge mix of many different theories.
> There were, of course, no "years of digging." Her children report that she
> had no books on the assassination at all until 1998, and then only two for
> quite a while, the Warren Report and Marina and Lee--were those the books
> you believe she "fit herself into"?
They lived with her?
They also report that she
> AVOIDED anything about the assassination until around that time.
I've seen numerous parents who take the side of their recently convicted
child. This is no surprise.
Both
> her son and her daughter have verified this.
Yep, and the Simpson kids think O.J. did it, right?
> Your claim that "she's been diggin' and weavin' for years" is simply
> false. Raising a false assumption to the level of conclusion makes one
> wonder what sort of PhD. you have.
None. I don't have a Ph.D. Einstein.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> No, Chad, you didn't create the webpages so what. You exploited them, as
> though they have some bearing on whether or not she is telling the
> truth--they don't.
And isn't exploitation part of advertising? She should be happy that I
bring these things to the attention of those looking for super intelligent
American Cream Dogs, have too much money so they can donate to some Genome
project...buy her art...or what other way she can release money out of
other people's pockets.
> Her value as a witness goes far beyond simply working at Reily, but of
> course you prefer John McAdams' misinformed version of things.
Actually, I prefer the information that you have provided, which is quite
interesting.
> Once again, you make the false implication that she has been studying the
> case for "twenty years."
I asked if she could find it in the last 20 years. That was a question.
You have no evidence for this nonsense.
That's right...I have to face the music because her relatives say
otherwise....
You
> have substituted bias for data, eager to discredit a witness before you've
> even reviewed her evidence.
Actually, I've read much about her accounts and have formulated an opinion
based upon research, not bias.
> Rush to Judgement returns.
No rushing here. I've taken my time.
Nice try though.
Hey, you knew that Powers was shot down to prevent a meeting in Europe
because old Ike wasn't feeling well, right?
Wait, did Judyth tell you that? She told me that.
Chad
Martin Shackelford
the information about your friend's book. As for me being "the last man
standing," what you call Team Judyth is actually larger than it was.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
again. Fictional stories aren't documented.
The shower shoes nonsense is a myth--she doesn't have, nor has she ever
claimed that she had, a pair of Lee's shower shoes. This was an
invention of one of her critics, which the credulous accepted without
checking.
Fascinating that you comment upon a book you haven't seen--ASSUMING its
contents. That's not the approach of a critical thinker.
Yes, her children lived with her. They would prefer that she not become
known as Oswald's mistress, but say that they have reason to believe
her, and they aren't being protective. Her daughter, in particular,
didn't get along with her for some time, but still agreed that her
mother avoided the subject of the assassination.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
itself in detail. Most sources I have seen "about" her accounts are
unreliable. Relying on them is bias, not research. Anyone who fails to
wait and examine the primary source is no researcher, but someone
rushing to judgment.
Martin
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Martin Shackelford wrote:
> > You've never NOT doubted me. Nothing new there.
> >
> > Martin
>
> Still nothing new on the book, huh? You know I have a friend who has a
> book near publication (a couple of months away) and it's already listed on
> Amazon.com for future orders. By contrast, all we get from Team Judyth
> (you're the last man standing) is empty promises -- seven years of them.
>
> JGL
King: How fares our cousin Hamlet?
Hamlet: Excellent, i'faith, of the chameleon's dish: I eat the air,
promise-cramm'd;-you cannot feed capons so.
- Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
> You latched onto the word "story" from the wrong place, Chad. Read it
> again. Fictional stories aren't documented.
Really? You've never read books where fact and fantasy are melded together?
/
BTW- it was your use of the word, not mine. "The truth, when
>>>it can be shared, is quite an interesting story."
> The shower shoes nonsense is a myth--she doesn't have, nor has she ever
> claimed that she had, a pair of Lee's shower shoes.
That's a myth?
She didn't email that to Louis Girdler in August of '03?
This was an
> invention of one of her critics, which the credulous accepted without
> checking.
Your refutation is based on?
> Fascinating that you comment upon a book you haven't seen--ASSUMING its
> contents. That's not the approach of a critical thinker
No, a critical thinker would evaluate all the stuff she's put out thus
far, which I have done.
> Yes, her children lived with her. They would prefer that she not become
> known as Oswald's mistress, but say that they have reason to believe her,
> and they aren't being protective. Her daughter, in particular, didn't get
> along with her for some time, but still agreed that her mother avoided the
> subject of the assassination.
Which doesn't really mean anything. OJ's kids don't think he had anything
to do with the murder of their mother.
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
> Reading "about" her accounts is very different from reading her account
> itself in detail.
Yeah, I know. She's changed elements of it, hasn't she?
Most sources I have seen "about" her accounts are
> unreliable. Relying on them is bias, not research. Anyone who fails to
> wait and examine the primary source is no researcher, but someone rushing
> to judgment.
Hey, we're all waiting. We've been waiting...
How damned hard is it to get a book deal on something that so many alleged
people swear is the real deal?
Chad
Martin Shackelford
heard it in early 1999.
Getting a JFK assassination book deal has never been a walk in the park.
After the History Channel withdrew ALL three Nigel Turner programs due
to complaints about ONE of them, it became even more difficult.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
story," I was referring to what happened in the course of working to
publish her book--NOT the content of the book itself--which was why I
suggested that you took the word "story" from the wrong place.
Naturally, when you repeated the quote, you took it out of context, so
that readers might believe you had NOT erred in interpreting it.
Yes, the "shower shoes" claim is a myth. She has NEVER claimed to have a
pair of Lee's shower shoes. McAdams seized on this issue to divert
attention from her possession of samples of Lee's handwriting. There is
no e-mail from Judyth to Louis Girdler cited, but rather an e-mail from
Girdler to McAdams. Girdler seemed to habitually misinterpret things, as
he is also the source of the fictitious claim that Howard Platzman
offered money to Anna Lewis in return for her videotaped statement. In
short, Girdler is not a reliable source. McAdams' "essay" is filled with
such questionable materials.
You claim to have evaluated "the stuff she's put out," but seem instead
to be relying heavily on what OTHERS have said about her. I don't see
the slightest effort at objective evaluation.
Martin
Chad Zimmerman
> None of the basic elements of Judyth's account has changed since I first
> heard it in early 1999.
Basic elements:
1. She worked at Reily.
2. She knew and had an affair with Oswald.
What other basic elements are there?
> Getting a JFK assassination book deal has never been a walk in the park.
Larry did it. Lifton did it. Lane did it. Garrison did it. Thompson did it.
Marrs did it. Menninger did it. McClellan did it. Lattimer did it. Posner
did it. DiEugenio did it. Henry Lee did it. Groden did it. Livingstone did
it. Tague did it. LaFontaine's did it. Belin did it. Kirkwood did it.
Crenshaw did it. Bugliosi has a contract. Hunt has 'em in line. Mellen got
one.
Need I go on?
You have the alleged mistress of LHO with all sorts of evidentiary proof. I
imagine this outweighs many books, right?
So, what's the problem.
> After the History Channel withdrew ALL three Nigel Turner programs due to
> complaints about ONE of them, it became even more difficult.
Yeah, like book publishers aren't intelligent enough to separate the issues
from McClellan's BEST SELLER and Judyth's account. As if the publishing
world is too dense to figure out that Judyth's saga doesn't really involve
LBJ much, which was the problem with TMWKK.
Publishers have published more books with less evidence than Judyth
allegedly has. They published McClellan's and made a boatload.
What exactly is the problem with this, Martin?
Book publishers are in it for money. Stories that promote conspiracy and the
*something new* feel sell. Non-conspiracy books don't sell as well, that is
a statistical fact. Larry's book was hard to publish because it didn't fit
the conspiracy feel that this country is obsessed with...yet it was
published.
Tell her to sell her art to herself, then resell it at 100 times the
purchase price. Then, take the money raised and self-publish.
After all...it is the *truth* that counts, isn't it? She just wants to get
the *real* story out, doesn't she? Should it really matter if a major
publishing house takes it or not? I mean, if it is really that good and
really the truth, wouldn't conviction outweigh compensation...as you've
noted many times?
Since that's the case and money isn't, I'll pay her $500 up front for the
exclusive rights to the book and see that it gets published. With her ailing
health, I'd be happy to take the burden from her and put in on myself. I'll
give her 80% of all the profits from the book so she can spend the rest of
her life in peace, painting bloody mountain seens replicating her bleeding
heart for Lee.
Pass that on to Judyth. I'm sure she'll be relieved that someone is willing
to get her story out and that money isn't the only impetus to publication.
80%, Martin. Pass that on.
I'll donate the rest to the American Genome Society/American Cream Dog
Foundation/JVB Art Emporium. Heck, she can even use it for a real website.
So, don't misunderstand the offer. I'll put up $500 of my hard earned money
and see that it is published, with Judyth getting all the profits- one way
or another.
Sound like a deal?
I'll write the check today. Gimme the book by the end of the year. I'll have
it published within 6 months of its arrival date in my hands. I'll make
sure that we find outlets for the book.
Deal?
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> When I said "The truth, when it can be shared, is quite an interesting
> story," I was referring to what happened in the course of working to
> publish her book--NOT the content of the book itself--which was why I
> suggested that you took the word "story" from the wrong place. Naturally,
> when you repeated the quote, you took it out of context, so that readers
> might believe you had NOT erred in interpreting it.
I am saying it is a story, you provided the word. Is that clear?
>
> Yes, the "shower shoes" claim is a myth. She has NEVER claimed to have a
> pair of Lee's shower shoes. McAdams seized on this issue to divert
> attention from her possession of samples of Lee's handwriting. There is no
> e-mail from Judyth to Louis Girdler cited, but rather an e-mail from
> Girdler to McAdams. Girdler seemed to habitually misinterpret things, as
> he is also the source of the fictitious claim that Howard Platzman offered
> money to Anna Lewis in return for her videotaped statement. In short,
> Girdler is not a reliable source. McAdams' "essay" is filled with such
> questionable materials.
So, simply saying that Judyth says it didn't happen is reliable?
>
> You claim to have evaluated "the stuff she's put out," but seem instead to
> be relying heavily on what OTHERS have said about her. I don't see the
> slightest effort at objective evaluation.
I read the transcript of her Black Op radio debacle. Is that enough, or
shall I list
everything that has come from her own mouth that I've read?
I've watched the TMWKK thing numerous times.
I've read all of her current webpages. BTW, how much for the bloody mountain
*art*?
I'm currently in the market for a 100x return on investment. Undoubtedly I
could get a $100
for it. I'll give her a full G. Washington for it.
Chad
>
> Martin
>
>
> Dr. Chad Zimmerman wrote:
Martin Shackelford
Nothing she said at that time has changed.
When I was talking about book deals, I was talking about the
contemporary situation. But you already knew that, didn't you?
Ignoring the rest of the nonsense, money isn't really the issue.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
original context, pretending that your usage applied if I said it AT ALL
in ANY context. Take responsibility for your own opinions--don't try to
imply that I share them.
As for the matter of Howard and Anna, where did you get the idea that I
was relying on Judyth--or Howard--for my information? I was there. I
KNOW that Girdler's version is a total fantasy.
You show very little sign of genuine familiarity with her
account--reading some of her own writings, when you begin by believing
the foolishness on McAdams' website, doesn't make you informed.
And you would be surprised what some of her art has sold for.
Martin
JLeyd...@aol.com
the Judyth story was extremely shoddy. First & foremost, he never
bothered to interview either Judyth's ex-husband or Marina Oswald. He
pretty much took Judyth at her word about a grand romance with LHO.
Apparently, it never occurred to him that Judyth's ex might have a few
useful insights into her character after a quarter century of marriage.
In short, Shackelford can't be believed because he just never bothered to
do the necessary research to prove her story. Explains why "60 Minutes"
sent 'em packing more than five years ago, why no publisher has signed up
after seven years of marketing and why Shackelford is the last man
standing from the old Team Judyth.
JGL
Martin Shackelford
relating to Judyth, and to omit relevant information like crazy.
You focus, as usual, on your favorite attack points, but leave out what
the reader needs to know about them:
1) I didn't interview Marina Oswald. True. I attempted to, and wrote to
her to facilitate this, but she never replied. I contacted a friend of
hers, who tried to arrange an interview without success. Leyden would
have everyone believe that my failure to interview her was a simple
matter of neglect--"he never bothered."
2) I didn't interview Judyth's ex-husband. True. I did have an e-mail
from him saying that he knew nothing which contradicted what she was
saying. He had been working in the Gulf of Mexico while she was in New
Orleans, and was rarely around. I've seen copies of his correspondence
that summer. Leyden fails to mention that I have communicated with two
of their children, who had relevant information from later years. They
also mentioned that their dad was about as oblivious to what was going
on around him as anyone they had ever met, and weren't in the least
surprised that he hadn't picked up on an affair.
3) I "pretty much took Judyth at her word about a grand romance with
LHO." False. After she first contacted me, I refused to provide her with
any information on the case. I grilled her on every point, and tried to
catch her in contradictions and falsehoods--I have continued to question
her closely on anything that raises doubts. I demanded documentation on
every point where it was available--and have continued to do so. As a
result, I have copies of nearly all of her documentation. I closely
studied several samples of his handwriting in her possession. I availed
myself of interviews of witnesses obtained by other researchers to check
elements of her account. I made extensive preparations for a visit to
New Orleans; did photo lineups with her and another witness, Anna Lewis;
interviewed Anna before Judyth had a chance to speak with her; and
closely observed Judyth during a tour of relevant sites in New Orleans.
Leyden is busy trying to perpetuate a myth, that I "never bothered to do
the necessary research."
4) He tries to suggest that "60 Minutes" failed to do a segment on her
because they didn't find her credible. In this, he contradicts "60
Minutes" producer Don Hewitt, who said in an interview that he would
STILL like to do the segment, and that higher-ups killed the story,
influenced by a Posner promoter from U.S. News & World Report. Later, a
segment was done by Nigel Turner for "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." It
was later suppressed here, though the History Channel acknowledged there
had been no complaints about it, and it is still shown in Britain.
5) I have already discussed the matter of publishing to the extent that
I feel free to do so at present.
6) Leyden concludes with another myth--that I am "the last man standing
from the old Team Judyth." Of course, Team Judyth was in itself a myth,
but it was identified as Judyth herself, me, and Howard Platzman. We are
all still around. Leyden seems to feel that someone not active on this
newsgroup no longer "exists" or has changed their beliefs. This is also
entirely false.
Leyden gets a ZERO on his little essay.
Martin
JLeyd...@aol.com
answer:
1) He never interviewed Marina Oswald. Sent her a letter requesting an
interview and got no answer, he says. Wow, what a research tiger.
2) He never interviewed Judyth's ex-husband. Apparently it didn't occur
to him that the ex might have some info that actually supported
Judyth's story. I suspect he knew better.
3) He vetted the highly tainted "witness," Anna Lewis before Judyth got
to her. And we know that because... well, Judyth told him and he told
us.
4) "60 Minutes" never ran a segment on Judyth and that is pretty much
self explanatory. (No thanks, Hewitt said, we don't want another
Peabody.)
5) Shackelford is the last man standing on the old Team Judyth. Must
make planning reunions a real snap.
By the way, how is the book coming? Hope we're not looking at another
seven years.
JGL
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Me thinks Shackelford doth protest too much. Let me simplify his
> answer:
> 1) He never interviewed Marina Oswald. Sent her a letter requesting an
> interview and got no answer, he says. Wow, what a research tiger.
This is too bad for him really, because Marina will say anything to
anybody.
Approaching the subject from a LN perspective? Yes, Lee was guilty and
there was no room in his life for any conspirator.
Approaching the subject from a CT perspective? Well, come to think of
it, there was some funny conspiratorial-type stuff going on, and when I
said that I saw guilt in Lee's eyes, I didn't really mean that I
actually saw guilt in his eyes.
MS wouldn't have had to wait too long for Marina to say that LHO was
tipping on the side.
Chad Zimmerman
I offered. The offer won't get better than that.
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:drplrn$8...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
No deal???
Chad
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:43e3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> So, does all that mean "No deal"?
>
> I offered. The offer won't get better than that.
>
> Chad
>
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:drplrn$8...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Chad Zimmerman
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:drplrn$8...@dispatch.concentric.net...
jpsh...@my-deja.com
there's a blog with a post from "The Real Judyth Baker"
stating that her book will be published by a new
house called MShach Publications. FWIW...
http://brightbill.covblogs.com/archives/005350.html
[...]
The fourth and final one is my historical biography,
"From Dallas With Love: Lee Harvey Oswald and Judyth
Vary -- Their Love," originally published in 1999
under the title "Lee, My Love: The Lonely Bull."
This also did not get wide distribution due to troubles
with my literary agent, Peter Cox. It was pulled off
the shelves under his influence after I fired him.
Soon, this should be reissued in a larger, expanded
edition with new material, more photos, and an interactive
supplement on CD-ROM. Thanks to Martin Shackelford and his
new company MShack Publications, I should be on the right track.
More soon.
Posted by: The Real Judyth Baker at Noviembre 2, 2004 07:52 AM
Martin Shackelford
is about as authentic as "The Original Lisa Pease." It wouldn't surprise
me if the same bozo was the author of both hoaxes, given the imitative
lack of imagination displayed.
Additional clues:
1) It was written on November 2, 2004--hardly a new announcement.
2) It contains nothing that hadn't been on the Internet previously about
Judyth.
3) "Mshach Publications"? Wasn't THAT blatant enough? My screen name is
mshack.
No wonder you people can't tell the difference between a phony and a
genuine witness.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
"Noviembre 2, 2004"
Why on earth would Judyth write the date in that form?
Martin
jpsh...@my-deja.com
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Anyone reading through that blog will see that "the real Judyth Baker"
> is about as authentic as "The Original Lisa Pease." It wouldn't surprise
> me if the same bozo was the author of both hoaxes, given the imitative
> lack of imagination displayed.
> Additional clues:
> 1) It was written on November 2, 2004--hardly a new announcement.
> 2) It contains nothing that hadn't been on the Internet previously about
> Judyth.
> 3) "Mshach Publications"? Wasn't THAT blatant enough? My screen name is
> mshack.
> No wonder you people can't tell the difference between a phony and a
> genuine witness.
I think I'll wait until "The Real Judyth Baker's Book" comes out
before reaching any firm conclusions...
Jerry Shinley
jpsh...@my-deja.com
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Additionally, look at the form of the date:
> "Noviembre 2, 2004"
> Why on earth would Judyth write the date in that form?
My theory -- which must remain only a theory at this time-- is
summed up by the following points:
1. The blog software added the date/time to the post.
2. The blog software supports multiple languages.
3. This particular site configured (or reconfigured) its installation
of the blog
software to use a language other than English, perhaps Spanish.
Jerry Shinley
Martin Shackelford
The AUTHENTIC Judyth Baker, however, has a very fine one.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
jpsh...@my-deja.com
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> "The Real Judyth Baker," that phony, will never publish a book.
Does this mean that there won't be an interactive CD ? :-(
JLeyd...@aol.com
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> "The Real Judyth Baker," that phony, will never publish a book.
> The AUTHENTIC Judyth Baker, however, has a very fine one.
>
> Martin
I suspect Shackelford is the only person who would insist that Judyth has
a "very fine" book after seven years -- yes, seven -- of being shunned by
publishers and thrown out in the street by "60 Minutes." That's why he's
the last man standing from the old Team Judyth. Even Judyth doesn't come
here anymore.
JGL
Martin Shackelford
researcher made the same judgment after reading it.
You continue to totally misrepresent the "60 Minutes" episode--but I
guess old habits are hard to break.
Why would Judyth come here? There are enough idiots elsewhere in the
world without having to come looking for them here.
As for my being "the last man standing," you continue to be woefully
factless, but that's never stopped you before.
Martin
JLeyd...@aol.com
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> I'm not the only one who considers the book very fine. A leading
> researcher made the same judgment after reading it.
> You continue to totally misrepresent the "60 Minutes" episode--but I
> guess old habits are hard to break.
> Why would Judyth come here? There are enough idiots elsewhere in the
> world without having to come looking for them here.
> As for my being "the last man standing," you continue to be woefully
> factless, but that's never stopped you before.
>
> Martin
Ah, yet another anonymous testimonial ("a leading researcher") has lined
up behind Judyth. Shackelford's got a million of them. But they all add
up to zero after seven years of Judyth and Shackelford trying to sell this
book. Why are they all so nervous about declaring their support, leaing
Shackelford out there all by himself as the last man standing from the old
(and now out of business) Team Judyth.
JGL
Martin Shackelford
to do so. I really don't care whether you're impressed or not, Leyden.
Secondly, I haven't spent "seven years" in "trying to sell" Judyth's book.
At present, that is all the detail I will discuss. Finally, I have USUALLY
been the only one close to Judyth commenting on this newsgroup--nothing
about that has changed. She has more support than she did several years
ago. Most people have no interest in wasting their time with posts like
this one of yours. That has nothing to do with the level of support for
her authenticity.
Martin
JLeyd...@aol.com
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> First of all, I don't name people unless I have their express permission
> to do so. I really don't care whether you're impressed or not, Leyden.
> Secondly, I haven't spent "seven years" in "trying to sell" Judyth's book.
> At present, that is all the detail I will discuss. Finally, I have USUALLY
> been the only one close to Judyth commenting on this newsgroup--nothing
> about that has changed. She has more support than she did several years
> ago. Most people have no interest in wasting their time with posts like
> this one of yours. That has nothing to do with the level of support for
> her authenticity.
>
> Martin
You keep posting, Shackelford, but you obviously have run out of things to
say. Time you buried the Judyth story. It must be lonely being the last
man standing from the old Team Judyth.
JGL
Martin Shackelford
false claims.
Martin