Ferrie's Ring (Blackburst?)
Chad Zimmerman
Hopefully this will make it to you one way or another. As
you know, Judyth's book has finally made it out to discriminating eyes.
Martin Shackelford raised the point regarding a ring owned by David Ferrie
that Judyth was able to remember. This was referenced at length on
page 667, source note number 331:
"I appreciate more the fact that Blackburst
finally did verify that Dave [Ferrie] owned this distinctive ring, since it
shows
I knew Dave Ferrie personally. The ring had never been mentioned in the
literature..."
Martin Shackelford on October 14, 2004:
"Blackburst did quiz Judyth about unpublished information. He asked her,
for example, about a ring Ferrie wore. When she described it accurately,
he stopped asking questions and went silent.
Martin"
Howard Platzman on October 18, 2003:
"-- Actually, some think it was a clever hoax. I mean where in the
literature do you find the gray-covered Queen of Spades (story, NOT
book), Ferrie's priestly ring with gargoyle figures, the pastel
painting in Mary Sherman's living room... Hey, what? You never heard
of any of this? Things she is not supposed to know? Bring on your
"inside experts," Debra. Judyth knows things you haven't the foggiest
notion of. Bring on Marina. Apparently Harris has her locked up. (Yes,
I know the Dallas crowd mistreated her. Judyth was mistreated, too.)
This, apparently, is one good piece of evidence that Judyth knew Ferrie.
Martin claims that you went silent when she described the ring. Is that
true?
Would you elaborate on the ring?
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
Did Judyth ever sketch this ring from memory? If so, was this ever shown
to any of his close associates for an ID?
Chad
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:44b2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
James K. Olmstead
David Ferrie wore that ring.....hundreds would know about it.....if he
kept it to wear only on special occassions fewer would know about it.
If you have time Chad don't forget about the Queen of Spades......that's a
very interesting area that avoids the main issue in association with
Oswald. BTW I have a copy of the same "booklet" and it's more tan then
grey.
jko
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message news:44b2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
Please fill us in.
Chad
"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:44b2de71$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Barb Junkkarinen
<jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>Glad you asked David......not real name but only name I can remember, If
>David Ferrie wore that ring.....hundreds would know about it.....if he
>kept it to wear only on special occassions fewer would know about it.
>
>If you have time Chad don't forget about the Queen of Spades......that's a
>very interesting area that avoids the main issue in association with
>Oswald. BTW I have a copy of the same "booklet" and it's more tan then
>grey.
>
>jko
Where did this ring thing ever come up from?
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
for a Russian opera he loved. He had a particular edition, bound
differently than most, in a gray cover. This wasn't in the literature.
Judyth described the book in detail, and Mary Ferrell confirmed with
Marina that Judyth had described the edition owned by Oswald.
Someone then claimed that Judyth had simply described the copy in the
library at her then-university in Louisiana, and said they had called
the university library. As it turned out, the edition in their
collection had a different color binding.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
She did.
Martin
James K. Olmstead
"Dr. Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message news:44b3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>I don't know much about the Queen of Spades issue.
>
> Please fill us in.
There is valid evidence investigated by the FBI concerning the QofS,
however Baker does not present that aspect. Months of postings delt
with seeing a copy of this book....not the contents.
I will dig my QofS files out.....I was looking at them the other day for
Stu Wexler, but he didn't call back.....I got catscans and xrays today......so
when I get back.
jko
James K. Olmstead
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:e8vpar$o...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Oswald had a copy of the Russian tale "The Queen of Spades," the basis for a Russian opera he loved. He had a
> particular edition, bound differently than most, in a gray cover. This wasn't in the literature. Judyth described the
> book in detail, and Mary Ferrell confirmed with Marina that Judyth had described the edition owned by Oswald.
> Someone then claimed that Judyth had simply described the copy in the library at her then-university in Louisiana, and
> said they had called the university library. As it turned out, the edition in their collection had a different color
> binding.
>
> Martin
Martin: Before I provide greater details on the importance of the QofS is
the above "all" of the material concerning the QofS contained in her book
or just the main aspect? In other words does she mention anything
directly related to Oswald during 1959-1963 concerning the QofS in her
book or just the conflicts after her story was made public?
jko
Chad Zimmerman
couldn't have been something that Judyth made up? What I'm asking is how
did you and/or Howard make sure that cross contamination of details
couldn't occur?
Not sure if there is an answer, but just curious.
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e8vpl9$o...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Martin Shackelford
That's why they weren't discussed in those posts.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Judyth described the ring she recalled seeing at Ferrie's apartment.
Blackburst then said that wasn't quite the description he had been
told--different mythological creature (but now admits that he made up the
claim that two witnesses told him of the ring, so he really had no idea
what it looked like). After perpetrating this hoax, he thought he had
exposed Judyth as a fraud--but, of course, he still doesn't know whether
or not Ferrie had such a ring. He just assumes that Judyth invented
it--and an assumption isn't evidence of anything.
Martin
James K. Olmstead
handling these books in any manner? This is very important and I will be
posting on this shortly in a seperate thread. There are alot of details
that need to be assembled from other files.
The fact that the contents were never discussed in any of the posts,
emails, published accounts or filmed interviews is very critical, it is
one area I thought would be later detailed in the book to establish her
relationship with Oswald in "the plot"....not love affair. To me it was
the most important "smoking gun" evidence she could provide, IF she had a
very close relationship to Oswald in any 'plot" to kill Castro. I believe
she brought up the Queen of Spades first in our exchanges, I would have to
access a hard drive not available to be sure, but I know I kept waiting
for her to expand on the issue beyond the "postings" on the subject.
The details and memo's concerning the Queen of Spades is in fact a
"Smoking Gun". However it can be used to establish motive and intent for
Oswald to kill JFK, easier then being used in defense of Oswald's degree
of guilt.
In fact if she had given me any indication that she knew the importance of
the Queen of Spades, when we were in direct contact, she would have won me
over to support her story. If the book published, contains the "offical"
details concerning the Queen of Spades, I will state right now, that I
will purchase her book, and back her 100%. I will at my own expense
travel to make contact with the son of the man who held the secret, the
man directly associated died in 1998 and make every effort to expand on
the research. I didn't learn of the man's name until earlier this year,
it was not made available until 2002 and I came across it almost by
accident, but had concerns dealing with this issue since the mid 90's.
The conflict here dealing with the Queen of Spades is far greater then
Baker's story.
If you really want to work on this it must be in public and on this fourm,
just provide the details published in her book on the Queen of Spades and
let's progress. I don't have any problem with working with you or making
public work I've held close to the vest for over 10 years.
James K. Olmstead
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:e91ehq$c...@dispatch.concentric.net...
pame...@mindspring.com
she didn't?
Pamela
On 12 Jul 2006 01:21:27 -0400, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
wrote:
James K. Olmstead
jko
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:e928st$b...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
to which something doesn't ad up quite right.
According to Martin, Blackburst asked about a ring. Judyth commented.
Blackburst said it wasn't quite the same thing and, at some point, has
admitted that he made the entire thing up. But, according to Martin, since
he really didn't have an idea about it, he couldn't know. So, what he thinks
is a hoax isn't.
Now, what does that really say?
It says that Blackburst made something up, Judyth tried to verify it,
Blackburst admitted it was a hoax...and Martin seems to be spinning it in
Juddufski's behalf. At least that's how I read it.
It appears Martin is now saying that there was a ring, but Blackburst didn't
know anything about it, thus he can't disprove it.
I wonder if Blackburst is going to comment on this.
Chad
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9fcab255v2doodtjm...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
book, not to public chunks of it here to save you the trouble of reading
it yourself?
"The Queen of Spades" is discussed on pp. 127-8 (with notes 320-322).
black...@aol.com
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Blackburst described the procedure he followed as "a double-blind test."
> Judyth described the ring she recalled seeing at Ferrie's apartment.
> Blackburst then said that wasn't quite the description he had been
> told--different mythological creature (but now admits that he made up the
> claim that two witnesses told him of the ring, so he really had no idea
> what it looked like). After perpetrating this hoax, he thought he had
> exposed Judyth as a fraud--but, of course, he still doesn't know whether
> or not Ferrie had such a ring. He just assumes that Judyth invented
> it--and an assumption isn't evidence of anything.
>
> Martin
I gave Baker a question to test if she knew Ferrie. I felt that the
results of this particular test did not establish that she knew him.
I disagree with the characterization of this as a hoax, or that I
exposed her as a fraud.
I am trying to work this out in private e-mails.
Martin Shackelford
Chad Zimmerman
> Blackburst described the procedure he followed as "a double-blind test."
> Judyth described the ring she recalled seeing at Ferrie's apartment.
> Blackburst then said that wasn't quite the description he had been
> told--different mythological creature (but now admits that he made up the
> claim that two witnesses told him of the ring, so he really had no idea
> what it looked like). After perpetrating this hoax, he thought he had
> exposed Judyth as a fraud--but, of course, he still doesn't know whether
> or not Ferrie had such a ring. He just assumes that Judyth invented
> it--and an assumption isn't evidence of anything.
Let me get this straight:
1. Blackburst made up a ring that he thought to be non-existent, thus
creating a "double-blind" test to see if Judyth would deny it or go with
it.
2. She described a ring that she says was at DF's apartment.
3. Blackburst said that she had the wrong mythological creature (?) but,
apparently, was close?
4. Then he says that the test was a hoax and that the ring was a figment
of his imagination, thus Judyth made that part up.
5. Martin and Judyth are saying that there WAS a ring, that it did have
some mythological creature on it and that Blackburst's double blind test
involving a ring was...just a completely lucky guess on Blackburst's part
to ask about something that he truly believed never existed.
Is that what you're basically saying, Martin?
Chad
pame...@mindspring.com
able to make determinations about others.
However, you did not and you are accepting information from people you
believe *did*. Since you are pursuing this in *private emails* we can
then determine you are not sharing your *evidence*. How much
credibility to you expect as a result?
Pamela
On 13 Jul 2006 17:17:05 -0400, "black...@aol.com"
<black...@aol.com> wrote:
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
took place here.
Martin seems to be of the opinion that you randomly guessed to question
her on a fictitious ring that actually existed! Or, he's insinuating that
you're lying- thinking that you were actually told about this from two
other people and now you're trying to recant and make Judyth look bad.
Waiting and watching in Colorado-
Chad
<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1152797654.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<doc...@netzero.net> wrote:
>No, according to Martin, Blackburst created a double-blind test for Judyth,
>to which something doesn't ad up quite right.
>
>According to Martin, Blackburst asked about a ring. Judyth commented.
>Blackburst said it wasn't quite the same thing and, at some point, has
>admitted that he made the entire thing up. But, according to Martin, since
>he really didn't have an idea about it, he couldn't know. So, what he thinks
>is a hoax isn't.
>
>Now, what does that really say?
>
>It says that Blackburst made something up, Judyth tried to verify it,
>Blackburst admitted it was a hoax...and Martin seems to be spinning it in
>Juddufski's behalf. At least that's how I read it.
Me too. Sadly. The question is WHY?
Barb :-)
black...@aol.com
pame...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Of course, the assumption is that you *knew* Ferrie and are therefore
> able to make determinations about others.
>
> However, you did not and you are accepting information from people you
> believe *did*. Since you are pursuing this in *private emails* we can
> then determine you are not sharing your *evidence*. How much
> credibility to you expect as a result?
>
> Pamela
Read my post later in this thread. It explains it more fully.
Martin Shackelford
Judyth described a ring which she saw among Ferrie's belongings, to the
best of her recollection--she recalled a griffin or similar beast on it.
Blackburst came back asking if it could have been a gargoyle, saying
(based only on his imagination) that two witnesses had described it as a
gargoyle. Not certain of her description, she allowed as how it might
have been a gargoyle, though she remembered it as a griffin.
The result: no progress in any direction.
Blackburst mistakenly assumed she was claiiming that he wore the ring,
and he said Ferrie never wore jewelry, but in her note to him, she had
said she saw it in a box of things belonging to Ferrie and his mother,
so there was no claim that he wore it.
Your statement that Blackburst made something up, and Judyth tried to
verify it has things pretty much backward, and skewed.
Blackburst has apologized, in the manner of a gentleman.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
way, as I said.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Judyth thought about it, recalled seeing a box of things which had three
rings in it--things belonging to Ferrie and his mother. She wasn't sure
what Blackburst meant by "unusual," but she recalled one that she
referred to as his "priestly" ring, but she never saw him wear it.
He asked her to describe it. She recalled that it had a griffin on it.
He then said (falsely) that two Ferrie friends had described it as a
gargoyle.
She said that it MIGHT have been a gargoyle, but she remembered it as a
griffin.
In short, all he established was that her memory wasn't entirely certain
as to the creature on the ring. He has posted himself that he didn't
feel he had exposed anything.
Blackburst's question about a ring was a shot in the dark, but most
people have a ring of some sort of other, even if they don't wear them.
He added that Ferrie wasn't know to wear any jewelry, but then she
hadn't said he wore the ring--so, in fact, what she recalled DID fit the
bit of fact in his mix.
Martin
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
you sure speak with confidence about that which you probably know little
about.
At least Martin is defending it because he was probably close to the
situation. You, on the other hand, have shown absolutely zero knowledge
about any of it.
How can someone that knows nothing about this actually pass judgement on one
that was without any such evidence?
Chad
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:dprdb29bn42h52r2c...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
she would say. He didn't know whether there was such a ring or not.
I'm not accusing him of lying--I believe him when he says there were no
"two witnesses" involved.
Don't try to make trouble--and please don't lower my opinion of
Colorado, a state of which I've always been very fond as a result of
many summers spent there.
Martin
black...@aol.com
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Wrong again, Chad.
> Judyth described a ring which she saw among Ferrie's belongings, to the
> best of her recollection--she recalled a griffin or similar beast on it.
> Blackburst came back asking if it could have been a gargoyle,
Actually, no. That's not the correct chronology.
howardp
now-famed Ferrie ring test, I feel it's my responsibility to explain
how the test was conducted and, in the process, fill in some of the
blanks that Blackburst (because of the very nature of his test) never
knew existed -- until now.
To be fair, Blackburst does not claim that Judyth's performance on
the ring test proves that she is a fake - but he certainly thinks it
has to be counted against her. I would argue, quite the contrary, that
it argues for her authenticity. Indeed, I would have had this argument
with him way back when he pulled his caper. I actually like the guy,
and I'm not at all angry that the test was not straightforward. I
just don't think he thought through what he was doing, and I'm
sorry to have to clear things up in a public setting so many years
later.
My thesis: if the test is useful in any way, it speaks in favor of, not
against, Judyth's authenticity.
So as not to prejudice matters, I will use Blackburst's own words
(from his recent e-mail "confession") to explain what it is he did
(I've excised personal comments).
Blackburst: ...At that time, there had already been speculation that
she might be recycling material she read in books, internet or got from
researchers, so when Howard asked me to test her, I decided to do a
double-blind-type test: To drop a piece of seemingly good info from a
seemingly good source, and see if she either didn't recognize it, or
ran with it.
There was no gargoyle ring. I made it up to test her. Within a few days
of giving made-up details about the ring, she sent me pictures of
gargoyles and griffins and said this is what she remembered. I was
disappointed that she appeared to be running with this false
information.
---------
First, it is easy to throw around scientific-sounding terms with
seeming authority, so let me state my belief that the test in no way
merits the appellation "double blind experiment."
In any case, this is how it all went down:
1 --- At 12 midnight I got an e-mail from Blackburst with a "test"
for Judyth. Could she describe "an unusual ring" that Ferrie had,
claiming that only two living witnesses knew about it and that it has
never been written about? I sent it on to her.
2 --- At 2 AM, she replied that he was probably referring to his
"priestly" ring. She offered no description.
3 --- When I reported this to Blackburst, he asked for a description.
4 --- I then spent several days trying to pry more detail from her.
Judyth takes such tests quite seriously and, with a powerful memory,
has passed more such tests than anyone can reasonably expect. (Indeed,
the details in her book should themselves be viewed as answers to test
questions never given.) Although she was, that week, preparing for a
trip to New York to meet with 60 Minutes, she expressed frustration in
her attempts to picture the ring - though she did believe it fit the
description "unusual." She told me that Dave did not actually wear
a ring in her presence, but that in showing her around his apartment,
she saw many, many items, including women's dresses, which she
assumed belonged to his mother, and reported that he also pulled out a
box that contained a few rings, among other keepsakes. Please note that
this is entirely in accordance with her statement, and Blackburst's
own belief, that Ferrie wore no such ring. She believes he wore the
ring she saw only when in his priestly garb, i.e., privately, when
conducting "mass."
5 --- The next time I spoke with her on the subject, she was in New
York, and despite her busy day, she excitedly told me that she
remembered a shape like a griffin and added her recollection that Jack
Martin had a similar ring. An accomplished artist, she sketched what
she could barely remember.
6 --- When I reported this to Blackburst, he replied that it was not a
griffin but a gargoyle. She did not know the exact meanings of the
terms but did, upon her return home, search for images that matched her
recollection. These are the pictures Blackburst mentions. He had no
idea, until now, about her struggle that week. She was actually angry
with herself for not remembering. (Judyth sometimes tries too hard to
please. Her memory is prodigious by any reasonable standard, yet she
felt she simply had to remember everything.)
7 --- Since Blackburst knew there was no ring with a gargoyle or a
griffin on it - or he thought he knew it - this convinced him,
apparently, that she "ran" with his disinformation, implying
thereby that she made it up simply to pass his test.
Consider now the fact that she had no way of knowing that Blackburst
made up the story about an "unusual ring." Given the reasonable
assumption that he had a real and specific ring in mind, and wasn't
just trying to fool her, it would have been idiotic to try to describe
something that he knew about but she didn't. Whatever else she might
be, the perpetrator of a hoax this detailed would not have been stupid
enough to try and pass such a test by offering a description conjured
out of the blue. How could she possibly hope to guess correctly - for
that is exactly what she would have to do to please him? The only safe
response would have been to say she couldn't recall a ring of any
kind. And, indeed, she did explain that she never saw him actually
wearing this ring.
If Blackburst had asked about his "unusual sweater" and she
responded that "he must mean the orange and purple one," this would
prove nothing but that she recalled seeing a sweater that she would
consider "unusual" - even though he just made up the question. Is
it so unusual for people to own rings that her ability to come up with
a description - after much trying, mind you - casts doubt about her
honesty? It is hardly beyond the pale that Dave Ferrie owned a ring,
indeed, more than one ring. All Blackburst did was ask her to pick out
the most "unusual" one, using her own criteria. Of course, it was
not Judyth that "ran" with his description; it was Blackburst who
ran with Judyth's! He was willing to "run" with whatever
description she gave! I would like to know if Blackburst knew anything
about the other rings she describes?
He could have viewed her report as additional information about Dave
Ferrie's possessions, just as one might learn about his sweaters,
window blinds, or the brand of cheese spread in his fridge. The fact
is, Blackburst was biased before he ever heard of Judyth. That is a
strong statement and not intended in a mean way. But his contribution
to the research has solidified (one might say, ossified) into the
unrelenting insistence that David Ferrie was a nobody who did nothing
to merit being dragged into the case. What he did was exactly what
someone with a preformed position naturally does, i.e., he chose to
view the description that Judyth gave not as a report of what she
actually saw, but rather as an elaboration on her supposed lie (again,
a dangerous one for the supposed lie-teller, when it would have been so
easy for her to say "I don't recall").
The real kicker (when the kicker kicks himself) is that it was Judyth,
not Blackburst, who braved the first description of the "priestly
ring." Blackburst said her description was close, but no cigar. Yet
another bit of dissembling, but for what possible reason? Here was a
test clearly gone out of control.
My contention: Blackburst's test would have been more of a test if he
was the one who described the ring and Judyth said "yeah, sure, I
recall that ring." How much simpler would that have been! And how
much more damaging!! In fact, Judyth's willingness to provide a
description - BELIEVING HE KNEW THE ANSWER - provides evidence of
sincerity.
Which is more likely? That Judyth described a ring she never saw but
had every reason to believe he knew about? Or that she described a ring
she saw but he didn't know about?
So Dave Ferrie did own a ring after all! Revelations!!
My regret: For years, Blackburst has held onto the true story of his
test and the conclusions he drew from it. He describes it as a burden
of sorts, and I choose to believe him. But it is a burden that could
have been lifted -- from all of us -- had he only asked.
The fact is, she did see some rings, among much else, and she describes
all she can remember in meticulous detail. Blackburst now speaks of
other "weaknesses" in her story, but as a Ferrie "specialist,"
he says nothing about the accuracy of her descriptions of Dave
Ferrie's apartment, possessions, habits, tastes, speech, etc.? How
did she do on those tests - tests that do not rest on intentional
misdirection? I'd like to know.
My conclusion: I don't see a well-conceived double-blind experiment
here, unless one counts Blackburst's own failure to see how his test
is thoroughly compromised by leading questions and answers and his lack
of familiarity with how she struggled to respond to his challenge (I
was there, he wasn't).
I do want to thank Blackburst for inviting Martin and me, privately, to
comment first publicly. I have always believed that he was not the
"gotcha"-type researcher. I believe he has scruples. I also believe
he failed to think this test through, and I regret that he waited so
many years to get a response. Now, onto other supposed "weaknesses"
in the very complicated story of Judyth Baker.
I am sure that there are mistakes in her account, as so much depends on
fragile human memory and difficult acts of reconstruction, but I am
just as confident that there are no lies.
Howard Platzman, Ph.D. :-)
James K. Olmstead
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:e94s0k$b...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> How many times, exactly, do I have to say that I'm here to DISCUSS the book, not to public chunks of it here to save
> you the trouble of reading it yourself?
> "The Queen of Spades" is discussed on pp. 127-8 (with notes 320-322).
>
> Martin
>
Ok........I'll research page 127-8 and the notes 320-322. I'm glad that
she actually puts forth material relating to the Queen of Spades in her
book. As I post on the Queen of Spades in the near future, please
feel free to jump in. You can also freely use the supporting evidence
I post....there's only a few pages from the Verona files but nobody
has ever put those pages with the Queen of Spades.
I will not mention Baker until I do the research from her book........but
remember it must have some true value and not just filler or relate to
newsgroup postings or conflicts over the book.
jko
James K. Olmstead
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:e94t9r$b...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> As would anything, given the apparent blind tenacity of your "position."
>
> Martin
>
Martin: Until she made public (go back to my efforts to discuss on a
public forum) her material dealing with this specific issue I was forced
to withold most of my concerns on the Queen of Spades. If I had
mentioned anything in detail in emails, it would have later been charged
that I was feeding her data on a very critical issue, one that actually
involves Congress giving a man associated $100,000 in 1964. Since
she was the only one presenting involvement, it was critical that I did
not appear to or in fact present her with data she could use on this
issue........she had to come forward first. I could have and would have
publically presented my material in support, if she was on the right path.
Nobody can claim that I provided her with facts....my position has been
constant and public.
If she was presenting the truth on this I would know it........if she dosen't
present the same details........it just shows how clueless she was.....which is a
view she presents, and that her story has little of no value to actual
detailed research into the actions and conflicts of the assassination.
The foundation of concern on the Queen of Spades has been on the internet
since A. J. Weberman, and his first website.....it would have been available to
her prior to going public or even contacting you in 1996 or 97 (not sure
exactly when she contacted you). Weberman gave me permission to use
the material in 1993.....so he would have given the same permission to her
IF she had asked for it. Some of the actual evidene has been presented
in the WC......and that's where the conflicts develop. So she had to have
material......not included in those areas......for me to consider her having
material of interest. I could not just accept what she was presenting because
of how see was rambling and those supporting her were getting things
wrong. It was Howard that made me develop this position when he bitched
about me.
jko
black...@aol.com
> Let me get this straight:
>
> 1. Blackburst made up a ring that he thought to be non-existent, thus
> creating a "double-blind" test to see if Judyth would deny it or go with
> it.
> 2. She described a ring that she says was at DF's apartment.
> 3. Blackburst said that she had the wrong mythological creature (?) but,
> apparently, was close?
> 4. Then he says that the test was a hoax and that the ring was a figment
> of his imagination, thus Judyth made that part up.
> 5. Martin and Judyth are saying that there WAS a ring, that it did have
> some mythological creature on it and that Blackburst's double blind test
> involving a ring was...just a completely lucky guess on Blackburst's part
> to ask about something that he truly believed never existed.
> Chad
This whole thing is getting confused. Let me tell it as it happened.
I was asked to test Judyth on her knowledge of Ferrie. To rule out the
possibility that she might be recycling information picked up from the
literature or the internet, I made up a story about Ferrie having a
ring with a gargoyle figure. But Judyth confirmed that she had seen
such a ring, and she e-mailed me pictures of gargoyles and griffins. I
was troubled about this, but I wanted to see if she would publish it in
her book, so I went silent, not expecting it to take six years. In her
book, she wrote that she "reluctantly conceded that Dave owned a ring
with a griffin-or-gargoyle-like mythological creature..." I found this
troubling, but I stuck by my pledge to read the book, to see all the
evidence, before making up my mind. I'm still reading it now.
I hope this clarifies the matter.
Chad Zimmerman
> able to make determinations about others.
Actually, that seems to be your assumption, as nobody has said anything of
the sort.
>
> However, you did not and you are accepting information from people you
> believe *did*.
You, no doubt, have proof to the contrary. If so, please post it.
>Since you are pursuing this in *private emails* we can
> then determine you are not sharing your *evidence*. How much
> credibility to you expect as a result?
Yeah, goad him into providing the evidence for your behalf. I'm sure he'll
expand
his thoughts when he's ready to do so.
Chad
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
><pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:dprdb29bn42h52r2c...@4ax.com...
>> Of course, the assumption is that you *knew* Ferrie and are therefore
>> able to make determinations about others.
>
>Actually, that seems to be your assumption, as nobody has said anything of
>the sort.
>
>>
>> However, you did not and you are accepting information from people you
>> believe *did*.
>
>You, no doubt, have proof to the contrary. If so, please post it.
>
> >Since you are pursuing this in *private emails* we can
>> then determine you are not sharing your *evidence*. How much
>> credibility to you expect as a result?
>
>Yeah, goad him into providing the evidence for your behalf. I'm sure he'll
>expand
>his thoughts when he's ready to do so.
>
>Chad
Imagine her making demands ... which is what she always chastises
others for. <g>
Barb :-)
howardp
Say what?
You are now maintaing that YOU gave HER details and asked her for MORE
details? First of all, you were only in contact with her thru me, and I
did not tell her it was a gargoyle. How would I know, anyway, if this was,
as you use the phrase, a "double-blind" test, with my being as blind as
Judyth?
Unfortunately, even if I accepted your "correction," the same flaw exists
as I mentioned in my long e-mail: ONLY AN IMBECILE WOULD DESCRIBE
SOMETHING SHE KNOWS SHE NEVER SAW BUT HAS EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE YOU HAD
DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF. Anyone with half a brain would say "I don't recall
any details." They would hardly start guessing out of the blue. And, I can
assure you, Judyth has brains galore.
We can get bogged down on this dubious test of yours OR you can go on and
say how she rates on all her other descriptions of Dave, his apartment,
habits, possessions, tastes, manner of speech, friends, etc.? The ring
story aside, no one has ever offered this level of detail before -- not
anywhere close -- on Ferrie and on so many other people and subjects. Her
account of events in New Orleans is unprecedented in the number of claims
it makes. Consider them answers to test questions, whether anyone ever
asked them or not. She is completely exposed on so many intricate and
verifiable descriptions that to linger on this one would be ludicrously
myopic.
Howard
black...@aol.com
night.)
Not to belabor this, but...
That's twice the chronology has been stated in reverse. I checked the
emails earlier today.
I mentioned gargoyle before Judyth did. It was after that that she
first mentioned gargoles and griffins.
I'll quote my own emails and paraphrase the others tomorrow night when
I'm in the office.
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
> He picked something very general--"Ferrie's unusual ring"--to see what she
> would say. He didn't know whether there was such a ring or not.
So, it was a lucky guess that there, in fact, was an "unusual ring"?
> I'm not accusing him of lying--I believe him when he says there were no
> "two witnesses" involved.
> Don't try to make trouble--
How could I make trouble? I'm simply asking questions.
and please don't lower my opinion of
> Colorado, a state of which I've always been very fond as a result of many
> summers spent there.
Yeah, my inquiries-being typed in Colorado- could cheapen your appreciation
of the state simply because I reside in it.
Interesting...;-)
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
President John F. Kennedy By His Lover'
Page 132:
"Dave brought out a variety of things for us to look at under the black
light. He had a fossil horse tooth, seashells, some flourite, uranium
specimens, and various gem and rock samples. Dave also showed us some
rings: an aquamarine that belonged to his mother, a small ruby ring that
glowed purple under the light, and, most interesting of all, a very
special ring that had an ugly, fanciful mythological creature carved into
its large globular form. Dave called it his "priestly ring." He sometimes
wore it as a joke. It was symbolic of black magic, witchcraft, satanic
rituals.
He let me take up the unusual ring.(331) Dave said, in actuality, he loved
God, but this weird-looking ring was useful to him on rare occasions. Dave
described how he was able to penetrate any religious group and get right
into the center of religious cults. He knew about every religion on earth,
he said, and had even witnessed the rites of Santeria and Voodoo. His
interest in hypnotism came from observing that speaking in tongues,
chants, and praying rosaries had the same result: pacifying the
participants, soothing their fears, assuaging their grief, making them
more suggestible and pliable..."
From page 667:
331 "FERRIE'S RING: Dave Ferrie's bizarre 'priestly ring' remained fixed
in my memories to the present day. When Ferrie expert David Blackburst
asked me, through Dr. Howard Platzman, to describe a ring of Dave's, to
ascertain if I had actually known Ferrie intimately enough to be aware of
a certain ring (for he only rarely wore it), I hesitated.
Not only did Dave have several rings, but at first, I was told Blackburst
said it was not necessarily an unusual ring. So I considered how best to
respond. I was also afraid Blackburst would not believe me if I mentioned
this outlandish ring- it was possibly unknown to Blackburst, since Dave
rarely wore it. I was asked the question just hours before I traveled to
New york by plane. By the time we landed, I decided to describe the
special ring I knew about, in the presence of witnesses. It was Dr.
Platzman who eased my mind by saying that Blackburst did not necessarily
mean it was not a special ring. I then described the unusual ring in full
detail, in the presence of Sixty Minutes host Mike Wallace, and producers
Don Hewitt, and Phil Scheffler, in response to Plat man's (sic) renewed
inquiry. Platzman was amazed when I told him what the ring looked like- I
saw his face.
I reluctantly conceded that Dave owned a ring with a
griffin-or-gargoyle-like mythological creature with an ugly face and wings
carved in to the large stone. If Blackburst had never heard of it, my
goose was cooked. Blackburst eventually confirmed that my description of
the unusual ring was correct, though at this time only two or three people
alive still knew of the existence of that particular ring, which he
described as Ferrie's 'gargoyle ring.' (Email in my possession)
I appreciated David Blackburst's caution and care, but I appreciated more
the fact that Blackburst finally did verify that Dave owned this
distinctive ring, since it shows I knew Dave Ferrie personally. The ring
had never been mentioned in the literature, not had I contacted anyone who
had known Ferrie."
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e972ov$d...@dispatch.concentric.net...
pame...@mindspring.com
<doc...@netzero.net> wrote:
>From one that has repeatedly been shown to not know much on this subject,
>you sure speak with confidence about that which you probably know little
>about.
Chad, you are making a habit of claiming that your incorrect opinions are
fact.
Is it you who is unaware of the process being used to obtain information
about Ferrie? For it is that I am commenting on; not the recent issue
about the ring.
>
>At least Martin is defending it because he was probably close to the
>situation. You, on the other hand, have shown absolutely zero knowledge
>about any of it.
>
Really? Apparently you have also forgotten how to Google, as you would
see that there have been past exchanges regarding Ferrie.
>How can someone that knows nothing about this actually pass judgement on one
>that was without any such evidence?
>
>Chad
How can someone starting with a false axiom and using it to form a false
conclusion have validity? :-0
Pamela
pame...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>
><pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:dprdb29bn42h52r2c...@4ax.com...
>> Of course, the assumption is that you *knew* Ferrie and are therefore
>> able to make determinations about others.
>
>Actually, that seems to be your assumption, as nobody has said anything of
>the sort.
This is an issue of process. Someone claiming to be an *expert* puts a
witness through hoops. However, when the *expert* is relying on
second-hand information. there is no way to guage whether the *expert*
has all the information they need to make a determination as to whether
the witness is supplying valid information or not.
That is what I am suggesting is the issue for those trying to put Judyth
through hoops.
>
>>
>> However, you did not and you are accepting information from people you
>> believe *did*.
>
>You, no doubt, have proof to the contrary. If so, please post it.
This is a matter of process, of logic. I am.
>
> >Since you are pursuing this in *private emails* we can
>> then determine you are not sharing your *evidence*. How much
>> credibility to you expect as a result?
>
>Yeah, goad him into providing the evidence for your behalf. I'm sure he'll
>expand
>his thoughts when he's ready to do so.
>
>Chad
>
I was speaking as a matter of process, in general, for issues dealt with
here. In this specific case, my statement in that regard was not
appropriate. I don't need any 'evidence' provided 'on my behalf'.
pame...@mindspring.com
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 14 Jul 2006 16:27:21 -0400, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>><pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:dprdb29bn42h52r2c...@4ax.com...
>>> Of course, the assumption is that you *knew* Ferrie and are therefore
>>> able to make determinations about others.
>>
>>Actually, that seems to be your assumption, as nobody has said anything of
>>the sort.
>>
>>>
>>> However, you did not and you are accepting information from people you
>>> believe *did*.
>>
>>You, no doubt, have proof to the contrary. If so, please post it.
>>
>> >Since you are pursuing this in *private emails* we can
>>> then determine you are not sharing your *evidence*. How much
>>> credibility to you expect as a result?
>>
>>Yeah, goad him into providing the evidence for your behalf. I'm sure he'll
>>expand
>>his thoughts when he's ready to do so.
>>
>>Chad
>
>Imagine her making demands ... which is what she always chastises
>others for. <g>
>
>Barb :-)
[...]
You set such a good example, Barb. <g>
black...@aol.com
Here is the chronology shown by my e-mails:
10/7/00: Howard Platzman writes that he wants to use my "New Orleans
expertise" to test Judyth. I wrote back to ask if she could remember
Ferrie's unusual ring.
10/9/00, 2:36am: Judyth writes that the only thing she can remember is his
priest's ring.
10/9/00, 4:07pm: Judyth writes the following:
1) It was religious
2) Ferrie had more than one ring
3) He once wore a military style signet ring
4) The ring in question was a very large Bishop's ring
5) There was also a little rosary ring
6) He also had a large square-stoned blue aquamarine ring that
belonged to his mother
7) He also had a small ruby ring
8) The ring in question was an Old Catholic or Russian bishop's ring
10/10/00: I write to Howard that "I guess my test question didn't
establish anything one way or the other. She did say he wore gloves, and
mentioned several religious type rings, military style, aquamarine and
ruby. The ring in question was described to me by two people as a
'gargoyle', apparently from Saint Mary's Seminary, and Ferrie joked that
the Rector of that institution must have posed for it. I'll try to come up
with a better question."
10/13/00 Howard writes that Judyth now described it as a carving, an
animal, a lion or griffin, a Bishopic ring, medieval-looking or
mythological. She commented that Jack S. Martin would sometimes wear the
same ring. Howard notes that this was pretty close to "gargoyle" and
"Rector", and I responded that she was "pretty close".
A few other e-mails were exchanged.
10/18/00: Judyth sends an e-mail entitled "gargoyles, gryphons, heraldic
lion like mythic..big file..re.carved priestly ring" which contains two
internet images, one of a gargoyle, and one of two griffins. She says she
found some things on the internet that reminded her of what was on
Ferrie's ring. She notes that gryphons and gargoyles can resemble each
other, and that Ferrie's priestly ring had what she thought was a gryphon
on it, and that she thinks her memory got it close enough.
black...@aol.com
howardp wrote:
> black...@aol.com wrote:
> > Martin Shackelford wrote:
> > > Wrong again, Chad.
> > > Judyth described a ring which she saw among Ferrie's belongings, to the
> > > best of her recollection--she recalled a griffin or similar beast on it.
> > > Blackburst came back asking if it could have been a gargoyle,
> >
> > Actually, no. That's not the correct chronology.
>
> Say what?
In the chronology above, Judyth first says griffin, and I then say
gargoyle. That's not the way it happened. I said gargoyle first, then
she said griffin, and then gargoyle. See the chronolgy in this thread.
black...@aol.com
I'm not sure I understand this post.
pame...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Of course, the assumption is that you *knew* Ferrie and are therefore
> able to make determinations about others.
?? It was a test, made many years ago. It didn't compare anybody to
anybody.
>
> However, you did not and you are accepting information from people you
> believe *did*.
?? What, the witnesses I've interviewed or the documents I've collected?
These are people who lived with Ferrie, had pictures with him, handled his
estate, were mentioned in Ferrie's letters, etc., and others who knew him
more casually.
Since you are pursuing this in *private emails* we can
> then determine you are not sharing your *evidence*.
?? As Howard mentioned, we had a short correspondence about this before it
became public. A professional courtesy. Let me know what evidence you
want. I'll share it.
How much
> credibility to you expect as a result?
Credibility? As a result of what? Hello, what's this all about?
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
You guys should probably spend some time getting your facts and stories
straight.
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e972ov$d...@dispatch.concentric.net...
black...@aol.com
>DeNiro< "You talkin' to me?" Where have I ever claimed to be an expert?
puts a
> witness through hoops.
I was INVITED to perform a test, and there were no ground rules.
However, when the *expert* is relying on
> second-hand information.
Who? Ferrie's family and friends? I guess the only first-hand source is
Ferrie. I'l go dig him up.
there is no way to guage whether the *expert*
> has all the information they need to make a determination as to whether
> the witness is supplying valid information or not.
I still don't know who you're talking about.
>
> That is what I am suggesting is the issue for those trying to put Judyth
> through hoops.
Tell me what is wrong with trying to determine if a witness is who they
say they are.
>
> >
> >>
> >> However, you did not and you are accepting information from people you
> >> believe *did*.
> >
> >You, no doubt, have proof to the contrary. If so, please post it.
>
> This is a matter of process, of logic. I am.
You're right. It is a matter of process and logic.
Barb Junkkarinen
I don't make claims and then refuse to back them up or even discuss
them. Yeah, that is a pretty good example, I reckon.
Thanks. :-)
>
>Pamela
>www.in-broad-daylight.com
Barb Junkkarinen
<black...@aol.com> wrote:
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my...
Barb :-)
>
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
>I think we can agree, then, that it didn't establish anything either way,
>as I said.
Yes, you should minimize this at all costs. However, wasn't it you who
edited the
source notes? What do they say? I'll bet they say that the ring existed and
that it
proves a tie to Dave Ferrie. I'll also bet that the ring was touted as
strong evidence
of this for years.
I appreciated David Blackburst's caution and care, but I appreciated more
the fact that Blackburst finally did verify that Dave owned this
distinctive ring, since it shows I knew Dave Ferrie personally. The ring
had never been mentioned in the literature, not had I contacted anyone who
had known Ferrie."
Backpedal....backpedal....moonwalk....
Chad
paul seaton
Sounds like Judyth didn't get anywhere near until after Blackburst mentions
the word "gargoyle" to Howard.
Then - 3 days later - Judyth pulls "griffon" out of her hat.
One could speculate that either :
1) She was somehow reading Blackburst's mind
2) The word "gargoyle" somehow found it's way from Howard to Judyth.
Can't wait for the claim - from team Judyth - that Ferrie really DID have a
griffon/gargoyle ring .. how wierd would THAT be ??
:-)
--
Paul Seaton
<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1152928761.4...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Oswald had a copy of the Russian tale "The Queen of Spades," the basis
>for a Russian opera he loved. He had a particular edition, bound
>differently than most, in a gray cover. This wasn't in the literature.
>Judyth described the book in detail, and Mary Ferrell confirmed with
>Marina that Judyth had described the edition owned by Oswald.
Somehow Mary Ferrell didn't believe Judyth's story.
>Someone then claimed that Judyth had simply described the copy in the
>library at her then-university in Louisiana, and said they had called
>the university library. As it turned out, the edition in their
>collection had a different color binding.
>
What is the source for *Oswald* having this? A Commission Exhibit or
something?
How about telling us the source.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Blackburst described the procedure he followed as "a double-blind test."
>Judyth described the ring she recalled seeing at Ferrie's apartment.
>Blackburst then said that wasn't quite the description he had been
>told--different mythological creature (but now admits that he made up the
>claim that two witnesses told him of the ring, so he really had no idea
>what it looked like). After perpetrating this hoax, he thought he had
>exposed Judyth as a fraud--but, of course, he still doesn't know whether
>or not Ferrie had such a ring. He just assumes that Judyth invented
>it--and an assumption isn't evidence of anything.
Is there any evidence other than Judyth's claim that Ferrie owned such
a ring?
black...@aol.com
pame...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Is it you who is unaware of the process being used to obtain information
> about Ferrie? For it is that I am commenting on; not the recent issue
> about the ring.
You talking abut me again? What's wrong with the process of obtaining
documents and interviewing witnesses?
> How can someone starting with a false axiom and using it to form a false
> conclusion have validity?
What's the false axiom in this case?
>
> Pamela
John McAdams
<doc...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>news:e9785c$q...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>> He picked something very general--"Ferrie's unusual ring"--to see what she
>> would say. He didn't know whether there was such a ring or not.
>
>So, it was a lucky guess that there, in fact, was an "unusual ring"?
Do we know that there *was* any "unusual ring?"
Martin Shackelford
correct sequence.
Martin
black...@aol.com wrote:
> Martin Shackelford wrote:
>
>>Wrong again, Chad.
>>Judyth described a ring which she saw among Ferrie's belongings, to the
>>best of her recollection--she recalled a griffin or similar beast on it.
>>Blackburst came back asking if it could have been a gargoyle,
>
>
Martin Shackelford
among herself, Ferrie and Oswald.
Martin
James K. Olmstead wrote:
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:e94s0k$b...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
>>How many times, exactly, do I have to say that I'm here to DISCUSS the book, not to public chunks of it here to save
>>you the trouble of reading it yourself?
>>"The Queen of Spades" is discussed on pp. 127-8 (with notes 320-322).
>>
>>Martin
>>
>
>
> Ok........I'll research page 127-8 and the notes 320-322. I'm glad that
> she actually puts forth material relating to the Queen of Spades in her
> book. As I post on the Queen of Spades in the near future, please
> feel free to jump in. You can also freely use the supporting evidence
> I post....there's only a few pages from the Verona files but nobody
> has ever put those pages with the Queen of Spades.
>
> I will not mention Baker until I do the research from her book........but
> remember it must have some true value and not just filler or relate to
> newsgroup postings or conflicts over the book.
>
> jko
>
>
>
>>James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ok..........Now does her book discuss the contents of the book or Oswald handling these books in any manner? This is
>>>very important and I will be posting on this shortly in a seperate thread. There are alot of details that need to be
>>>assembled from other files.
>>>
>>>The fact that the contents were never discussed in any of the posts, emails, published accounts or filmed interviews
>>>is very critical, it is one area I thought would be later detailed in the book to establish her relationship with
>>>Oswald in "the plot"....not love affair. To me it was the most important "smoking gun" evidence she could provide,
>>>IF she had a very close relationship to Oswald in any 'plot" to kill Castro. I believe she brought up the Queen of
>>>Spades first in our exchanges, I would have to access a hard drive not available to be sure, but I know I kept
>>>waiting for her to expand on the issue beyond the "postings" on the subject.
>>>
>>>The details and memo's concerning the Queen of Spades is in fact a "Smoking Gun". However it can be used to
>>>establish motive and intent for Oswald to kill JFK, easier then being used in defense of Oswald's degree of guilt.
>>>
>>>In fact if she had given me any indication that she knew the importance of the Queen of Spades, when we were in
>>>direct contact, she would have won me over to support her story. If the book published, contains the "offical"
>>>details concerning the Queen of Spades, I will state right now, that I will purchase her book, and back her 100%. I
>>>will at my own expense travel to make contact with the son of the man who held the secret, the man directly
>>>associated died in 1998 and make every effort to expand on the research. I didn't learn of the man's name until
>>>earlier this year, it was not made available until 2002 and I came across it almost by accident, but had concerns
>>>dealing with this issue since the mid 90's.
>>>
>>>The conflict here dealing with the Queen of Spades is far greater then Baker's story.
>>>
>>>If you really want to work on this it must be in public and on this fourm, just provide the details published in her
>>>book on the Queen of Spades and let's progress. I don't have any problem with working with you or making public work
>>>I've held close to the vest for over 10 years.
>>>
>>>James K. Olmstead
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:e91ehq$c...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>The contents had nothing to do with the issue being discussed, Jim. That's why they weren't discussed in those posts.
>>>>
>>>>Martin
>>>>
>>>>James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Dr. Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message news:44b3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know much about the Queen of Spades issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please fill us in.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There is valid evidence investigated by the FBI concerning the QofS,
>>>>>however Baker does not present that aspect. Months of postings delt
>>>>>with seeing a copy of this book....not the contents.
>>>>>
>>>>>I will dig my QofS files out.....I was looking at them the other day for
>>>>>Stu Wexler, but he didn't call back.....I got catscans and xrays today......so
>>>>>when I get back.
>>>>>
>>>>>jko
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Chad
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:44b2de71$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Glad you asked David......not real name but only name I can remember, If David Ferrie wore that ring.....hundreds
>>>>>>>would know about it.....if he kept it to wear only on special occassions fewer would know about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you have time Chad don't forget about the Queen of Spades......that's a very interesting area that avoids the
>>>>>>>main issue in association with Oswald. BTW I have a copy of the same "booklet" and it's more tan then grey.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>jko
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message news:44b2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Blackburst (or anyone else regarding this topic),
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hopefully this will make it to you one way or another. As
>>>>>>>>you know, Judyth's book has finally made it out to discriminating eyes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Martin Shackelford raised the point regarding a ring owned by David Ferrie
>>>>>>>>that Judyth was able to remember. This was referenced at length on
>>>>>>>>page 667, source note number 331:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"I appreciate more the fact that Blackburst
>>>>>>>>finally did verify that Dave [Ferrie] owned this distinctive ring, since it shows
>>>>>>>>I knew Dave Ferrie personally. The ring had never been mentioned in the literature..."
Martin Shackelford
columns in April of 1999. My first message from her was that May.
We didn't mention Weberman to her at all--but I do recall when someone
did, a year or so later, and she thought she had found buried
treasure--it was pretty clear she hadn't been aware the site existed. By
then, of course, she had already detailed her account to Howard and
myself, a condition we insisted on before directing her toward ANY other
information.
Martin
James K. Olmstead wrote:
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:e94t9r$b...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
>>As would anything, given the apparent blind tenacity of your "position."
>>
>>Martin
>>
>
>
> Martin: Until she made public (go back to my efforts to discuss on a
> public forum) her material dealing with this specific issue I was forced
> to withold most of my concerns on the Queen of Spades. If I had
> mentioned anything in detail in emails, it would have later been charged
> that I was feeding her data on a very critical issue, one that actually
> involves Congress giving a man associated $100,000 in 1964. Since
> she was the only one presenting involvement, it was critical that I did
> not appear to or in fact present her with data she could use on this
> issue........she had to come forward first. I could have and would have
> publically presented my material in support, if she was on the right path.
>
> Nobody can claim that I provided her with facts....my position has been
> constant and public.
>
> If she was presenting the truth on this I would know it........if she dosen't
> present the same details........it just shows how clueless she was.....which is a
> view she presents, and that her story has little of no value to actual
> detailed research into the actions and conflicts of the assassination.
>
> The foundation of concern on the Queen of Spades has been on the internet
> since A. J. Weberman, and his first website.....it would have been available to
> her prior to going public or even contacting you in 1996 or 97 (not sure
> exactly when she contacted you). Weberman gave me permission to use
> the material in 1993.....so he would have given the same permission to her
> IF she had asked for it. Some of the actual evidene has been presented
> in the WC......and that's where the conflicts develop. So she had to have
> material......not included in those areas......for me to consider her having
> material of interest. I could not just accept what she was presenting because
> of how see was rambling and those supporting her were getting things
> wrong. It was Howard that made me develop this position when he bitched
> about me.
>
>
> jko
>
>
>
>
>>James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That's ok Martin.....you just confirmed my position.
>>>
>>>jko
>>>
>>>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:e928st$b...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm sorry, Jim, but you've given me no reason to do your research for you.
>>>>
>>>>Martin
>>>>
>>>>James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:e8vpar$o...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Oswald had a copy of the Russian tale "The Queen of Spades," the basis for a Russian opera he loved. He had a
>>>>>>particular edition, bound differently than most, in a gray cover. This wasn't in the literature. Judyth described
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>book in detail, and Mary Ferrell confirmed with Marina that Judyth had described the edition owned by Oswald.
>>>>>>Someone then claimed that Judyth had simply described the copy in the library at her then-university in Louisiana,
>>>>>>and said they had called the university library. As it turned out, the edition in their collection had a different
>>>>>>color binding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Martin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Martin: Before I provide greater details on the importance of the QofS is the above "all" of the material
>>>>>concerning
>>>>>the QofS contained in her book or just the main aspect? In other words does she mention anything directly related
>>>>>to
>>>>>Oswald during 1959-1963 concerning the QofS in her book or just the conflicts after her story was made public?
>>>>>
>>>>>jko
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Martin Shackelford
You asked only about "Ferrie's unusual ring."
When she described one with a griffin, only THEN did you mention a gargoyle.
It is significant that she still hasn't given up the "griffin"
description--only giving a nod in your direction to the possibility that
her memory might have been flawed, and that it might have been a
gargoyle.
Do you KNOW that Ferrie didn't have a ring with a griffin figure on it,
as she described?
As Howard has asked, what about her other descriptions of Ferrie's
apartment and its contents? Now that the book has been published, it can
do no harm to comment on that aspect.
Martin
black...@aol.com wrote:
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>
>>Let me get this straight:
>>
>>1. Blackburst made up a ring that he thought to be non-existent, thus
>>creating a "double-blind" test to see if Judyth would deny it or go with
>>it.
>>2. She described a ring that she says was at DF's apartment.
>>3. Blackburst said that she had the wrong mythological creature (?) but,
>>apparently, was close?
>>4. Then he says that the test was a hoax and that the ring was a figment
>>of his imagination, thus Judyth made that part up.
>>5. Martin and Judyth are saying that there WAS a ring, that it did have
>>some mythological creature on it and that Blackburst's double blind test
>>involving a ring was...just a completely lucky guess on Blackburst's part
>>to ask about something that he truly believed never existed.
>
>
>>Chad
>
>
> This whole thing is getting confused. Let me tell it as it happened.
>
> I was asked to test Judyth on her knowledge of Ferrie. To rule out the
> possibility that she might be recycling information picked up from the
> literature or the internet, I made up a story about Ferrie having a
> ring with a gargoyle figure. But Judyth confirmed that she had seen
> such a ring, and she e-mailed me pictures of gargoyles and griffins. I
> was troubled about this, but I wanted to see if she would publish it in
> her book, so I went silent, not expecting it to take six years. In her
> book, she wrote that she "reluctantly conceded that Dave owned a ring
> with a griffin-or-gargoyle-like mythological creature..." I found this
> troubling, but I stuck by my pledge to read the book, to see all the
> evidence, before making up my mind. I'm still reading it now.
>
> I hope this clarifies the matter.
>
>
Martin Shackelford
Martin Shackelford
and when YOU received it.
If Howard received the description before he received your mention of
gargoyle, that would explain it.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
John McAdams
>
>Here is the chronology shown by my e-mails:
>
>10/7/00: Howard Platzman writes that he wants to use my "New Orleans
>expertise" to test Judyth. I wrote back to ask if she could remember
>Ferrie's unusual ring.
>
>10/9/00, 2:36am: Judyth writes that the only thing she can remember is his
>priest's ring.
>
>10/9/00, 4:07pm: Judyth writes the following:
> 1) It was religious
> 2) Ferrie had more than one ring
> 3) He once wore a military style signet ring
> 4) The ring in question was a very large Bishop's ring
> 5) There was also a little rosary ring
> 6) He also had a large square-stoned blue aquamarine ring that
> belonged to his mother
> 7) He also had a small ruby ring
> 8) The ring in question was an Old Catholic or Russian bishop's ring
>
So what she is doing is throwing a bunch of stuff up against the wall
in the reasonable hope that *one* of the things will stick.
paul seaton
<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1152920146.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> (I'm putting the kids to bed, so this will be brief, but more tomorrow
> night.)
>
> Not to belabor this, but...
> That's twice the chronology has been stated in reverse. I checked the
> emails earlier today.
>
> I mentioned gargoyle before Judyth did.
That's the crucial point.
Seems that *after* hearing the word "gargoyle" she suddenly starts recalling
"griffons".
I'm sure there will be some 'logical' explanation for this from team J
(Enough to bamboozle Pamela, anyway ;- ).
--
Paul Seaton
It was after that that she
> first mentioned gargoles and griffins.
>
> I'll quote my own emails and paraphrase the others tomorrow night when
> I'm in the office.
>
>
John McAdams
>Are you saying Judyth is damned if she did id this ring and damned if
>she didn't?
>
No, she could have said "I don't remember any ring."
pame...@mindspring.com
John McAdams
>black...@aol.com wrote:
>> Martin Shackelford wrote:
>> > Wrong again, Chad.
>> > Judyth described a ring which she saw among Ferrie's belongings, to the
>> > best of her recollection--she recalled a griffin or similar beast on it.
>> > Blackburst came back asking if it could have been a gargoyle,
>>
>> Actually, no. That's not the correct chronology.
>
>Say what?
>
>You are now maintaing that YOU gave HER details and asked her for MORE
>details? First of all, you were only in contact with her thru me, and I
>did not tell her it was a gargoyle. How would I know, anyway, if this was,
>as you use the phrase, a "double-blind" test, with my being as blind as
>Judyth?
>
>Unfortunately, even if I accepted your "correction," the same flaw exists
>as I mentioned in my long e-mail: ONLY AN IMBECILE WOULD DESCRIBE
>SOMETHING SHE KNOWS SHE NEVER SAW BUT HAS EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE YOU HAD
>DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF. Anyone with half a brain would say "I don't recall
>any details." They would hardly start guessing out of the blue. And, I can
>assure you, Judyth has brains galore.
But she in fact described several rings.
She had a reasonable hope that one would be the one that Blackburst
had in ming.
.John
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:6v6gb2tq6cr1shdaa...@4ax.com...
> On 14 Jul 2006 16:27:21 -0400, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
>>> Of course, the assumption is that you *knew* Ferrie and are therefore
>>> able to make determinations about others.
>>
>>Actually, that seems to be your assumption, as nobody has said anything of
>>the sort.
>
> witness through hoops. However, when the *expert* is relying on
> second-hand information.
Second hand information? Can you please describe for us the source of this
second hand information?
there is no way to guage whether the *expert*
> has all the information they need to make a determination as to whether
> the witness is supplying valid information or not.
Pamela, he made the ring up. It never existed. It was a figment of his
imagination.
Do try and see the implication of that and what M and H are asking you to
believe.
>
> That is what I am suggesting is the issue for those trying to put Judyth
> through hoops.
Would these "hoops" include investigative methods of seeing whether Judyth
was telling the truth? Would these "hoops" be something often used in court
cases to make the same determination?
>>
>>>
>>> However, you did not and you are accepting information from people you
>>> believe *did*.
>>
>>You, no doubt, have proof to the contrary. If so, please post it.
>
> This is a matter of process, of logic. I am.
Pamela, are you under the impression that logic is something you've been
shown to have copious amounts of?
>
>>
>> >Since you are pursuing this in *private emails* we can
>>> then determine you are not sharing your *evidence*. How much
>>> credibility to you expect as a result?
>>
>>Yeah, goad him into providing the evidence for your behalf. I'm sure he'll
>>expand
>>his thoughts when he's ready to do so.
>>
>>Chad
>>
>
> I was speaking as a matter of process, in general, for issues dealt with
> here. In this specific case, my statement in that regard was not
> appropriate. I don't need any 'evidence' provided 'on my behalf'.
You never do.
Chad
>
> Pamela
> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
paul seaton
Ha hah hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaahh !!
This is better than Cancun !!
The words 'final nail' & 'coffin' come to mind. :-)
--
Paul Seaton
"Dr. Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:44b8143e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> From Lee Harvey Oswald 'The True Story of the Accused Assassin of
> President John F. Kennedy By His Lover'
>
> Page 132:
>
> "Dave brought out a variety of things for us to look at under the black
> light. He had a fossil horse tooth, seashells, some flourite, uranium
> specimens, and various gem and rock samples. Dave also showed us some
> rings: an aquamarine that belonged to his mother, a small ruby ring that
> glowed purple under the light, and, most interesting of all, a very
> special ring that had an ugly, fanciful mythological creature carved into
> its large globular form. Dave called it his "priestly ring." He sometimes
> wore it as a joke. It was symbolic of black magic, witchcraft, satanic
> rituals.
>
> He let me take up the unusual ring.(331) Dave said, in actuality, he loved
> God, but this weird-looking ring was useful to him on rare occasions. Dave
> described how he was able to penetrate any religious group and get right
> into the center of religious cults. He knew about every religion on earth,
> he said, and had even witnessed the rites of Santeria and Voodoo. His
> interest in hypnotism came from observing that speaking in tongues,
> chants, and praying rosaries had the same result: pacifying the
> participants, soothing their fears, assuaging their grief, making them
> more suggestible and pliable..."
>
> From page 667:
> I appreciated David Blackburst's caution and care, but I appreciated more
> the fact that Blackburst finally did verify that Dave owned this
> distinctive ring, since it shows I knew Dave Ferrie personally. The ring
> had never been mentioned in the literature, not had I contacted anyone who
> had known Ferrie."
>
>
>
>
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:e972ov$d...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> > Wrong again, Chad.
> > Judyth described a ring which she saw among Ferrie's belongings, to the
> > best of her recollection--she recalled a griffin or similar beast on it.
> >> <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> news:9fcab255v2doodtjm...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >>>Are you saying Judyth is damned if she did id this ring and damned if
> >>>she didn't?
> >>>
> >>>Pamela
> >>>
> >>>On 12 Jul 2006 01:21:27 -0400, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
Barb Junkkarinen
Looks like. I like the way the description changed from a "very large
Bishop's ring" ... and "Old Catholic or Russian bishop
s ring" ...
to a thing carved with a gargoyle (or whatever) that he used to gain
entrance to cults, etc.
Roman Catholic bishop's rings may be large .... but they aren't carved
with scary mythological creatures.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<paulREMO...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
><black...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1152920146.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> (I'm putting the kids to bed, so this will be brief, but more tomorrow
>> night.)
>>
>> Not to belabor this, but...
>> That's twice the chronology has been stated in reverse. I checked the
>> emails earlier today.
>>
>> I mentioned gargoyle before Judyth did.
>
>That's the crucial point.
>Seems that *after* hearing the word "gargoyle" she suddenly starts recalling
>"griffons".
>
>I'm sure there will be some 'logical' explanation for this from team J
>(Enough to bamboozle Pamela, anyway ;- ).
Ya *think*? :-)
Peter Fokes
<paulREMO...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>Ha hah hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaahh !!
>This is better than Cancun !!
>
>The words 'final nail' & 'coffin' come to mind. :-)
Ah, such an event is often accompanied by what the Good Book says...
Peace and quiet at last. The hammers put on the shelf.
Then, more rational discussion of impossible trajectories, Humes'
notes, Kantor's insistence, Hosty's malfeasance, Oswald's fluency,
Marina's shoe and Oswald's IQ ...
That would be just, ducky ... or should I say "ducking" :-)
PF
"I am often so engrossed in my work that I forget to eat lunch."
(Albert Einstein in letter to his son, Hans Albert, in 1915.)
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>She contacted me after McAdams began posting here about the Salon
>columns in April of 1999. My first message from her was that May.
>We didn't mention Weberman to her at all--but I do recall when someone
>did, a year or so later, and she thought she had found buried
>treasure--it was pretty clear she hadn't been aware the site existed. By
>then, of course, she had already detailed her account to Howard and
>myself, a condition we insisted on before directing her toward ANY other
>information.
>
>Martin
Am curious. Just how would you expect her to have acted if she wanted
you to think she had never seen the info? And, you seem to be under
the impression that without you and Howard "directing her toward ANY
other inforamtion" she was somehow incapable of ferreting out lots of
info on her own. This is your whiz kid, the former reporter who said
she learned how to dig out all kinds of info from that experience.
Wake up, Martin.
Barb :-)
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ni6gb252tpan0i98m...@4ax.com...
> On 14 Jul 2006 14:50:10 -0400, "Dr. Chad Zimmerman"
> <doc...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>>From one that has repeatedly been shown to not know much on this subject,
>>you sure speak with confidence about that which you probably know little
>>about.
>
> Chad, you are making a habit of claiming that your incorrect opinions are
> fact.
If you'd bother to muster an argument with something substantial, I'd
agree with you. However, I can't remember how many months its been since
I've seen a post of yours that isn't cheering a play by play or completely
void of information.
>
> Is it you who is unaware of the process being used to obtain information
> about Ferrie? For it is that I am commenting on; not the recent issue
> about the ring.
I have no idea what *process* you're trying to get at here, Pamela. I do
know that Blackburst knows infinitely more about Ferrie than you do.
>
>>
>>At least Martin is defending it because he was probably close to the
>>situation. You, on the other hand, have shown absolutely zero knowledge
>>about any of it.
>>
>
> Really? Apparently you have also forgotten how to Google, as you would
> see that there have been past exchanges regarding Ferrie.
Good. Post all that you know. By reading your posts, you cannot gain any
knowledge about him, as you rarely provide any content by which to muster
an argument.
>
>>How can someone that knows nothing about this actually pass judgement on
>>one
>>that was without any such evidence?
>>
>>Chad
>
> How can someone starting with a false axiom and using it to form a false
> conclusion have validity? :-0
Pamela, instead of throwing about these declarations-a -la- Pamela, why
don't you actually provide a lucid argument? You just keep repeating the
same idiotic phrases with the same pointless rhetoric. Perhaps you could
*orient* yourself to a *level playing field* and feel *comfortable* doing
so by providing evidence of your opinions. If not, please continue with
the same non-sensical, pseudoacademic pointless vocabulary and conclusions
sans evidence.
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
"howardp" <ho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1152858474.7...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> As the intermediary between Judyth Baker and Blackburst in the
> now-famed Ferrie ring test, I feel it's my responsibility to explain
> how the test was conducted and, in the process, fill in some of the
> blanks that Blackburst (because of the very nature of his test) never
> knew existed -- until now.
>
> To be fair, Blackburst does not claim that Judyth's performance on
> the ring test proves that she is a fake - but he certainly thinks it
> has to be counted against her. I would argue, quite the contrary, that
> it argues for her authenticity. Indeed, I would have had this argument
> with him way back when he pulled his caper. I actually like the guy,
> and I'm not at all angry that the test was not straightforward. I
> just don't think he thought through what he was doing, and I'm
> sorry to have to clear things up in a public setting so many years
> later.
>
> My thesis: if the test is useful in any way, it speaks in favor of, not
> against, Judyth's authenticity.
>
> So as not to prejudice matters, I will use Blackburst's own words
> (from his recent e-mail "confession") to explain what it is he did
> (I've excised personal comments).
>
> Blackburst: ...At that time, there had already been speculation that
> she might be recycling material she read in books, internet or got from
> researchers, so when Howard asked me to test her, I decided to do a
> double-blind-type test: To drop a piece of seemingly good info from a
> seemingly good source, and see if she either didn't recognize it, or
> ran with it.
>
> There was no gargoyle ring. I made it up to test her. Within a few days
> of giving made-up details about the ring, she sent me pictures of
> gargoyles and griffins and said this is what she remembered. I was
> disappointed that she appeared to be running with this false
> information.
> ---------
>
> First, it is easy to throw around scientific-sounding terms with
> seeming authority, so let me state my belief that the test in no way
> merits the appellation "double blind experiment."
>
> In any case, this is how it all went down:
>
> 1 --- At 12 midnight I got an e-mail from Blackburst with a "test"
> for Judyth. Could she describe "an unusual ring" that Ferrie had,
> claiming that only two living witnesses knew about it and that it has
> never been written about? I sent it on to her.
>
> 2 --- At 2 AM, she replied that he was probably referring to his
> "priestly" ring. She offered no description.
>
> 3 --- When I reported this to Blackburst, he asked for a description.
>
> 4 --- I then spent several days trying to pry more detail from her.
> Judyth takes such tests quite seriously and, with a powerful memory,
> has passed more such tests than anyone can reasonably expect. (Indeed,
> the details in her book should themselves be viewed as answers to test
> questions never given.) Although she was, that week, preparing for a
> trip to New York to meet with 60 Minutes, she expressed frustration in
> her attempts to picture the ring - though she did believe it fit the
> description "unusual." She told me that Dave did not actually wear
> a ring in her presence, but that in showing her around his apartment,
> she saw many, many items, including women's dresses, which she
> assumed belonged to his mother, and reported that he also pulled out a
> box that contained a few rings, among other keepsakes. Please note that
> this is entirely in accordance with her statement, and Blackburst's
> own belief, that Ferrie wore no such ring.
Blackburst's statement appears that not only did he not wear such a ring,
but that no such ring existed.
She believes he wore the
> ring she saw only when in his priestly garb, i.e., privately, when
> conducting "mass."
Is that what she wrote in the book?
Page 132:
"He sometimes wore it as a joke."
In the next paragraph, she goes on to claim that he wore it to penetrate
religious groups. What religious groups let you in because you wear a
certain ring with a gargoyle in it?
Do Catholics routinely go around penetrating other religious groups
wearing rings that are "symbolic of black magic, witchcraft, satanic
rituals". Must be the CIA- Catholic Infiltration Association.
>
> 5 --- The next time I spoke with her on the subject, she was in New
> York, and despite her busy day, she excitedly told me that she
> remembered a shape like a griffin and added her recollection that Jack
> Martin had a similar ring. An accomplished artist, she sketched what
> she could barely remember.
Page 667, Source note 331:
"Dave Ferrie's bizarre "priestly ring" remained fixed in my memories to
the present day."
>
> 6 --- When I reported this to Blackburst, he replied that it was not a
> griffin but a gargoyle. She did not know the exact meanings of the
> terms but did, upon her return home, search for images that matched her
> recollection. These are the pictures Blackburst mentions. He had no
> idea, until now, about her struggle that week. She was actually angry
> with herself for not remembering. (Judyth sometimes tries too hard to
> please. Her memory is prodigious by any reasonable standard, yet she
> felt she simply had to remember everything.)
Page 667, Source note 331:
"I was asked the question just hours before I traveled to New York by
plane. By the time we landed, I decided to describe the special ring I
knew about, in the presence of witnesses....I then described the unusual
ring in full detail, in the presence of Sixty Minutes host Mike Wallace,
and producers Don Hewitt, and Phil Scheffler, in response to Plat man's
(sic) renewed inquiry. Platzman was amazed when I told him what the ring
looked like- I saw his face."
What was the date that the plane landed and she described the ring in
"full detail" and when did the questioning begin?
>
> 7 --- Since Blackburst knew there was no ring with a gargoyle or a
> griffin on it - or he thought he knew it - this convinced him,
> apparently, that she "ran" with his disinformation, implying
> thereby that she made it up simply to pass his test.
I'm sure it was just a coincidence that such a ring existed, even though
he honestly thought that no such ring existed and the HE came up with the
word 'gargoyle'.
>
> Consider now the fact that she had no way of knowing that Blackburst
> made up the story about an "unusual ring."
I think that was the point, Howard.
>Given the reasonable
> assumption that he had a real and specific ring in mind,
No, according to Blackburst, he made it up and didn't have anything
specific in mind.
and wasn't
> just trying to fool her, it would have been idiotic to try to describe
> something that he knew about but she didn't.
"Consider this", that she actually thought she was being tested by someone
that would know more about Ferrie than she did and that this test might be
legit.
Whatever else she might
> be, the perpetrator of a hoax this detailed would not have been stupid
> enough to try and pass such a test by offering a description conjured
> out of the blue.
The pertinent phrase may be "out of the blue". Odd that Blackburst is
thinking of a gargoyle "out of the blue" and Judyth comes up with a
griffin "out of the blue".
>How could she possibly hope to guess correctly - for
> that is exactly what she would have to do to please him?
Hmm, that's a very good question, Howard. Just how could that happen?
The only safe
> response would have been to say she couldn't recall a ring of any
> kind. And, indeed, she did explain that she never saw him actually
> wearing this ring.
Unless!...she thought this was a genuine test by someone that researched
the hell out of Ferrie and might know something that she should know!?!
>
> If Blackburst had asked about his "unusual sweater" and she
> responded that "he must mean the orange and purple one," this would
> prove nothing but that she recalled seeing a sweater that she would
> consider "unusual" -
Yeah, sweaters and rings...heck, they're almost the same thing!
even though he just made up the question. Is
> it so unusual for people to own rings that her ability to come up with
> a description - after much trying, mind you - casts doubt about her
> honesty?
Person A invents the mythological creature on a mythological ring. Person
B "out of the blue" remembers a very similar mythological creature on a
real ring.
What a coincidence and I can't believe you're trying to pass this onto the
NG as such!
It is hardly beyond the pale that Dave Ferrie owned a ring,
> indeed, more than one ring. All Blackburst did was ask her to pick out
> the most "unusual" one, using her own criteria.
And, lo and behold...she came up with the exact ring that Blackburst says
was a figment of his imagination!?!
Of course, it was
> not Judyth that "ran" with his description; it was Blackburst who
> ran with Judyth's!
Huh? Judyth, who never mentioned this ring to anyone, was ahead of
Blackburst's use of the word "gargoyle" and Blackburst ran with it?
Peyote, Cannibis...and Nectar of the Gargoyle Gods!?!
He was willing to "run" with whatever
> description she gave! I would like to know if Blackburst knew anything
> about the other rings she describes?
I would like to know how your mind works, because this twistorama is one
of the biggest loads I've ever read.
>
> He could have viewed her report as additional information about Dave
> Ferrie's possessions, just as one might learn about his sweaters,
> window blinds, or the brand of cheese spread in his fridge. The fact
> is, Blackburst was biased before he ever heard of Judyth. That is a
> strong statement and not intended in a mean way. But his contribution
> to the research has solidified (one might say, ossified) into the
> unrelenting insistence that David Ferrie was a nobody who did nothing
> to merit being dragged into the case. What he did was exactly what
> someone with a preformed position naturally does, i.e., he chose to
> view the description that Judyth gave not as a report of what she
> actually saw, but rather as an elaboration on her supposed lie (again,
> a dangerous one for the supposed lie-teller, when it would have been so
> easy for her to say "I don't recall").
Yeah, unless Judyth thought she may be tested by someone that knew more
about Ferrie than she did.
>
> The real kicker (when the kicker kicks himself) is that it was Judyth,
> not Blackburst, who braved the first description of the "priestly
> ring."
How many priests wear gargoyle rings symbolizing satanic cults, black
magic, etc.?
>Blackburst said her description was close, but no cigar. Yet
> another bit of dissembling, but for what possible reason? Here was a
> test clearly gone out of control.
So, you decided to stop it at that time because it was "clearly out of
control"?
>
> My contention: Blackburst's test would have been more of a test if he
> was the one who described the ring and Judyth said "yeah, sure, I
> recall that ring."
No, that'd be leading a witness.
How much simpler would that have been! And how
> much more damaging!! In fact, Judyth's willingness to provide a
> description - BELIEVING HE KNEW THE ANSWER - provides evidence of
> sincerity.
Yeah, and JUST HAPPENS to be what Blackburst thought to be something HE
made up "out of the blue"!
Holy coincidence, Juddufski!
>
> Which is more likely? That Judyth described a ring she never saw but
> had every reason to believe he knew about? Or that she described a ring
> she saw but he didn't know about?
I like option #3:
She described a ring that she was led to describe.
>
> So Dave Ferrie did own a ring after all! Revelations!!
Hopefully for Judyth!
>
> My regret: For years, Blackburst has held onto the true story of his
> test and the conclusions he drew from it. He describes it as a burden
> of sorts, and I choose to believe him. But it is a burden that could
> have been lifted -- from all of us -- had he only asked.
Spare me the hero routine.
>
> The fact is, she did see some rings, among much else, and she describes
> all she can remember in meticulous detail. Blackburst now speaks of
> other "weaknesses" in her story, but as a Ferrie "specialist,"
> he says nothing about the accuracy of her descriptions of Dave
> Ferrie's apartment, possessions, habits, tastes, speech, etc.? How
> did she do on those tests - tests that do not rest on intentional
> misdirection? I'd like to know.
You mean like the notes in her hand of one of his alleged speeches?
As Judyth says, perhaps someday someone will be able to verify the subject
patterns in her handwritten notes as being the thoughts of Dr. Dave
Ferrie.
> My conclusion: I don't see a well-conceived double-blind experiment
> here, unless one counts Blackburst's own failure to see how his test
> is thoroughly compromised by leading questions and answers
HE LED THE ANSWERS?
Earth to Howard....YOU were the intermediary.
and his lack
> of familiarity with how she struggled to respond to his challenge (I
> was there, he wasn't).
You are talking about the same ring that she had supposedly committed to
memory, right?
>
> I do want to thank Blackburst for inviting Martin and me, privately, to
> comment first publicly. I have always believed that he was not the
> "gotcha"-type researcher. I believe he has scruples. I also believe
> he failed to think this test through, and I regret that he waited so
> many years to get a response. Now, onto other supposed "weaknesses"
> in the very complicated story of Judyth Baker.
Um...as a real researcher should do after such a test, he chose to see how
it was handled when published, right? And, weren't YOU also involved in
this test? At what point in time did you decide to call it a farce?
Uhhh....sometime after the truth came out and I decided it wasn't as good
of a verification as I've been touting for all these years.......
>
> I am sure that there are mistakes in her account, as so much depends on
> fragile human memory
"with a powerful memory"
One of those new, powerful-fragile varieties, right?
Chad
P.S.- I just picked up my copy of 'How to Fall From a Tightrope While
Spinning a Yarn' by Beverly Oliver. When you'd like to borrow it, just
ask. My new email address is outoftheblue@spinning_BS.com
Martin Shackelford
to when you offer your own characterization of what it says.
Martin
Dr. Chad Zimmerman wrote:
> From Lee Harvey Oswald 'The True Story of the Accused Assassin of
> President John F. Kennedy By His Lover'
>
> Page 132:
>
> "Dave brought out a variety of things for us to look at under the black
> light. He had a fossil horse tooth, seashells, some flourite, uranium
> specimens, and various gem and rock samples. Dave also showed us some
> rings: an aquamarine that belonged to his mother, a small ruby ring that
> glowed purple under the light, and, most interesting of all, a very
> special ring that had an ugly, fanciful mythological creature carved into
> its large globular form. Dave called it his "priestly ring." He sometimes
> wore it as a joke. It was symbolic of black magic, witchcraft, satanic
> rituals.
>
> He let me take up the unusual ring.(331) Dave said, in actuality, he loved
> God, but this weird-looking ring was useful to him on rare occasions. Dave
> described how he was able to penetrate any religious group and get right
> into the center of religious cults. He knew about every religion on earth,
> he said, and had even witnessed the rites of Santeria and Voodoo. His
> interest in hypnotism came from observing that speaking in tongues,
> chants, and praying rosaries had the same result: pacifying the
> participants, soothing their fears, assuaging their grief, making them
> more suggestible and pliable..."
>
> From page 667:
>
> 331 "FERRIE'S RING: Dave Ferrie's bizarre 'priestly ring' remained fixed
> in my memories to the present day. When Ferrie expert David Blackburst
> asked me, through Dr. Howard Platzman, to describe a ring of Dave's, to
> ascertain if I had actually known Ferrie intimately enough to be aware of
> a certain ring (for he only rarely wore it), I hesitated.
>
> Not only did Dave have several rings, but at first, I was told Blackburst
> said it was not necessarily an unusual ring. So I considered how best to
> respond. I was also afraid Blackburst would not believe me if I mentioned
> this outlandish ring- it was possibly unknown to Blackburst, since Dave
> rarely wore it. I was asked the question just hours before I traveled to
> New york by plane. By the time we landed, I decided to describe the
> special ring I knew about, in the presence of witnesses. It was Dr.
> Platzman who eased my mind by saying that Blackburst did not necessarily
> mean it was not a special ring. I then described the unusual ring in full
> detail, in the presence of Sixty Minutes host Mike Wallace, and producers
> Don Hewitt, and Phil Scheffler, in response to Plat man's (sic) renewed
> inquiry. Platzman was amazed when I told him what the ring looked like- I
> saw his face.
>
> I reluctantly conceded that Dave owned a ring with a
> griffin-or-gargoyle-like mythological creature with an ugly face and wings
> carved in to the large stone. If Blackburst had never heard of it, my
> goose was cooked. Blackburst eventually confirmed that my description of
> the unusual ring was correct, though at this time only two or three people
> alive still knew of the existence of that particular ring, which he
> described as Ferrie's 'gargoyle ring.' (Email in my possession)
>
> I appreciated David Blackburst's caution and care, but I appreciated more
> the fact that Blackburst finally did verify that Dave owned this
> distinctive ring, since it shows I knew Dave Ferrie personally. The ring
> had never been mentioned in the literature, not had I contacted anyone who
> had known Ferrie."
>
>
>
>
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>>><pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>news:9fcab255v2doodtjm...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Are you saying Judyth is damned if she did id this ring and damned if
>>>>she didn't?
>>>>
>>>>Pamela
>>>>
>>>>On 12 Jul 2006 01:21:27 -0400, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Was there a good check system in place to make sure that this item
>>>>>couldn't have been something that Judyth made up? What I'm asking is how
>>>>>did you and/or Howard make sure that cross contamination of details
>>>>>couldn't occur?
>>>>>
>>>>>Not sure if there is an answer, but just curious.
>>>>>
>>>>>Chad
>>>>>
>>>>>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
paul seaton
> > > Judyth described a ring which she saw among Ferrie's belongings, to
the
> > > best of her recollection--she recalled a griffin or similar beast on
it.
> > > Blackburst came back asking if it could have been a gargoyle,
> >
>
> Say what?
>
> You are now maintaing that YOU gave HER details and asked her for MORE
> details? First of all, you were only in contact with her thru me, and I
> did not tell her it was a gargoyle.
But you knew, right ?
> How would I know, anyway, if this was,
> as you use the phrase, a "double-blind" test, with my being as blind as
> Judyth?
Would the double blind in fact not be that YOU didn't know it was a
figment of BB's imagination either ? So that any (unconscious.., just
trying to help.. ) 'coaching' process going on from you to Judyth would be
made [very] evident?
>
> Unfortunately, even if I accepted your "correction," the same flaw exists
> as I mentioned in my long e-mail: ONLY AN IMBECILE WOULD DESCRIBE
> SOMETHING SHE KNOWS SHE NEVER SAW BUT HAS EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE YOU HAD
> DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF.
Not so. She is told it existed, so she pretends to have seen it, but not
to recall it too well. Not knowing that BB was making the whole thing up,
where's the risk ? Where's the imbecility ?
> Anyone with half a brain would say "I don't recall
> any details." They would hardly start guessing out of the blue. And, I can
> assure you, Judyth has brains galore.
From previous posts, Judyth seems to have pretty well covered the field of
all possible ring types ( Hey ! It's Ringo Ferrie ! Boy did he have a LOT
of rings !! ) Then the word 'gargoyle' got out. Then this GRIFFON
magically appears.
Wonderful ! Holy James Randi !!
>
> We can get bogged down on this dubious test of yours
Translation : We have been caught in the act , so let's change the
subject.. ?
OR you can go on and
> say how she rates on all her other descriptions of Dave, his apartment,
> habits, possessions, tastes, manner of speech, friends, etc.? The ring
> story aside, no one has ever offered this level of detail before -- not
> anywhere close -- on Ferrie and on so many other people and subjects. Her
> account of events in New Orleans is unprecedented in the number of claims
> it makes. Consider them answers to test questions, whether anyone ever
> asked them or not. She is completely exposed on so many intricate and
> verifiable descriptions that to linger on this one would be ludicrously
> myopic.
Let's forget this one tiny embarassing eleven dollar bill & concentrate on
the rest of what's in her wallet .. ?
You know, the creator of Sherlock Holmes was conned by two little girls
into believing in fairies - so the gullible amongst us are in good
company.
Caveat Emptor.
--
Paul Seaton
pame...@mindspring.com
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 14 Jul 2006 23:29:30 -0400, pame...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:27:10 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 14 Jul 2006 16:27:21 -0400, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:dprdb29bn42h52r2c...@4ax.com...
>>>>> Of course, the assumption is that you *knew* Ferrie and are therefore
>>>>> able to make determinations about others.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, that seems to be your assumption, as nobody has said anything of
>>>>the sort.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> However, you did not and you are accepting information from people you
>>>>> believe *did*.
>>>>
>>>>You, no doubt, have proof to the contrary. If so, please post it.
>>>>
>>>> >Since you are pursuing this in *private emails* we can
>>>>> then determine you are not sharing your *evidence*. How much
>>>>> credibility to you expect as a result?
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, goad him into providing the evidence for your behalf. I'm sure he'll
>>>>expand
>>>>his thoughts when he's ready to do so.
>>>>
>>>>Chad
>>>
>>>Imagine her making demands ... which is what she always chastises
>>>others for. <g>
>>>
>>>Barb :-)
>>[...]
>>
>>You set such a good example, Barb. <g>
>
>I don't make claims and then refuse to back them up or even discuss
>them. Yeah, that is a pretty good example, I reckon.
>
>Thanks. :-)
>
You even make up claims for others and then demand that they 'discuss'
them. And should they rise to the bait, you continue to claim they
have refused to 'discuss' them. I'd say you set a stellar example.
pame...@mindspring.com
<black...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>pame...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> Is it you who is unaware of the process being used to obtain information
>> about Ferrie? For it is that I am commenting on; not the recent issue
>> about the ring.
>
>You talking abut me again? What's wrong with the process of obtaining
>documents and interviewing witnesses?
You didn't post Chad's statements. I was replying to them.
An *expert* can unintentionally sandbag a witness if they are unaware
of the full extent of the information a witness has and don't know how
to account for it. I was speaking generally, and didn't mean to
criticize you personally.
>> How can someone starting with a false axiom and using it to form a false
>> conclusion have validity?
>
>What's the false axiom in this case?
It was Chad's.
pame...@mindspring.com
<paulREMO...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
><black...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1152920146.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> (I'm putting the kids to bed, so this will be brief, but more tomorrow
>> night.)
>>
>> Not to belabor this, but...
>> That's twice the chronology has been stated in reverse. I checked the
>> emails earlier today.
>>
>> I mentioned gargoyle before Judyth did.
>
>That's the crucial point.
>Seems that *after* hearing the word "gargoyle" she suddenly starts recalling
>"griffons".
>
>I'm sure there will be some 'logical' explanation for this from team J
>(Enough to bamboozle Pamela, anyway ;- ).
Unfair Paul. You don't seem to read my posts, just make lame comments
about me...how valuable a use of your time is that? :-0
pame...@mindspring.com
How would one go about that, John? I don't see your logic in making
this claim.
pame...@mindspring.com
McAdams) wrote:
>On 12 Jul 2006 23:05:03 -0400, pame...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>>Are you saying Judyth is damned if she did id this ring and damned if
>>she didn't?
>>
>
>No, she could have said "I don't remember any ring."
[...]
>
And then she would have been accused of being coy. ;-0
Pamela
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:44b93724...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 14 Jul 2006 20:26:47 -0400, "Dr. Chad Zimmerman"
>>> He picked something very general--"Ferrie's unusual ring"--to see what
>>> she
>>> would say. He didn't know whether there was such a ring or not.
>>
>>So, it was a lucky guess that there, in fact, was an "unusual ring"?
>
>
ONLY from Judyth. She says there was, therefore there was.
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
They've already claimed that.
Chad
"paul seaton" <paulREMO...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:44b8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> Sounds like Judyth didn't get anywhere near until after Blackburst
> mentions
> the word "gargoyle" to Howard.
> Then - 3 days later - Judyth pulls "griffon" out of her hat.
>
> One could speculate that either :
>
> 1) She was somehow reading Blackburst's mind
> 2) The word "gargoyle" somehow found it's way from Howard to Judyth.
>
> Can't wait for the claim - from team Judyth - that Ferrie really DID have
> a
> griffon/gargoyle ring .. how wierd would THAT be ??
> :-)
>
>
> --
> Paul Seaton
>
> www.paulseaton.com/jfk
>
> <black...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1152928761.4...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Here is the chronology shown by my e-mails:
>>
>> 10/7/00: Howard Platzman writes that he wants to use my "New Orleans
>> expertise" to test Judyth. I wrote back to ask if she could remember
>> Ferrie's unusual ring.
>>
>> 10/9/00, 2:36am: Judyth writes that the only thing she can remember is
>> his
>> priest's ring.
>>
>> 10/9/00, 4:07pm: Judyth writes the following:
>> 1) It was religious
>> 2) Ferrie had more than one ring
>> 3) He once wore a military style signet ring
>> 4) The ring in question was a very large
>> Bishop's
> ring
>> 5) There was also a little rosary ring
>> 6) He also had a large square-stoned blue
> aquamarine ring that
>> belonged to his mother
>> 7) He also had a small ruby ring
>> 8) The ring in question was an Old Catholic or
> Russian bishop's ring
>>
>> 10/10/00: I write to Howard that "I guess my test question didn't
>> establish anything one way or the other. She did say he wore gloves, and
>> mentioned several religious type rings, military style, aquamarine and
>> ruby. The ring in question was described to me by two people as a
>> 'gargoyle', apparently from Saint Mary's Seminary, and Ferrie joked that
>> the Rector of that institution must have posed for it. I'll try to come
>> up
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
The "unusual ring" was replied by Judyth as being his "priestly ring" on
10/9/00.
Same day, several hours later, it was a religious ring. It was an old
Catholic or Bishop's ring.
The next day, he tells Howard that it was described as a Gargoyle ring.
Three days later, Howard replies that it was a griffin.
Five days later, she replies with pictures of Gargoyles.
So, Martin, was Blackburst clairvoyant or was the well poisoned with a
ring that never existed?
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e9a3sq$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
this debacle out?
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e9a42v$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
paul seaton
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:e9fib2drip9lq338p...@4ax.com...
> On 15 Jul 2006 15:06:44 -0400, "paul seaton"
> <paulREMO...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Ha hah hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaahh !!
> >This is better than Cancun !!
> >
> >The words 'final nail' & 'coffin' come to mind. :-)
>
> Ah, such an event is often accompanied by what the Good Book says...
>
> Peace and quiet at last. The hammers put on the shelf.
>
> Then, more rational discussion of impossible trajectories, Humes'
> notes, Kantor's insistence, Hosty's malfeasance, Oswald's fluency,
> Marina's shoe and Oswald's IQ ...
>
> That would be just, ducky ... or should I say "ducking" :-)
Opaque as always, Peter. You seem to be saying that it's better to keep
poring over any kind of NEW nonsense than go back to the old nonsense
again. Have to say, I think Blackburst's little experiment was
categorically a work of genius & deserving of the Nobel Prize for
Investigative Questioning.
--
Paul Seaton
pame...@mindspring.com
would have handled this situation, since she seems to claim to have
more insight into it than Martin?
Pamela
pame...@mindspring.com
<doc...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
><pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:6v6gb2tq6cr1shdaa...@4ax.com...
>> On 14 Jul 2006 16:27:21 -0400, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>news:dprdb29bn42h52r2c...@4ax.com...
>>>> Of course, the assumption is that you *knew* Ferrie and are therefore
>>>> able to make determinations about others.
>>>
>>>Actually, that seems to be your assumption, as nobody has said anything of
>>>the sort.
>>
>> This is an issue of process. Someone claiming to be an *expert* puts a
>> witness through hoops. However, when the *expert* is relying on
>> second-hand information.
>
>Second hand information? Can you please describe for us the source of this
>second hand information?
Well, if an *expert* gets information from a witness, then uses it to
question another witness, they are using information that they have heard,
but not experienced themself.
>
>
>there is no way to guage whether the *expert*
>> has all the information they need to make a determination as to whether
>> the witness is supplying valid information or not.
>
>Pamela, he made the ring up. It never existed. It was a figment of his
>imagination.
If the *expert* does not have all the information on a subject, how can
they evaluate a response they don't anticipate? In this case, if DF did
have ring(s), and the *expert* was unaware of that fact, how could he then
deal with a description of a ring?
>
>Do try and see the implication of that and what M and H are asking you to
>believe.
I'm not 'believing' anything. I am looking at the process that is
taking place.
>
>>
>> That is what I am suggesting is the issue for those trying to put Judyth
>> through hoops.
>
>Would these "hoops" include investigative methods of seeing whether Judyth
>was telling the truth? Would these "hoops" be something often used in court
>cases to make the same determination?
I don't care what *methods* people think they are using. If they are not
a witness themself, they may not have sufficient information to evaluate
the response of a witness. An *expert* who is not a first-hand witness
may be unable to appropriately evaluate information outside of the
framework of their second-hand knowledge.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, you did not and you are accepting information from people you
>>>> believe *did*.
>>>
>>>You, no doubt, have proof to the contrary. If so, please post it.
>>
>> This is a matter of process, of logic. I am.
>
>Pamela, are you under the impression that logic is something you've been
>shown to have copious amounts of?
Why the personal Chad? Can't we just stick to the topic?
>>
>>>
>>> >Since you are pursuing this in *private emails* we can
>>>> then determine you are not sharing your *evidence*. How much
>>>> credibility to you expect as a result?
>>>
>>>Yeah, goad him into providing the evidence for your behalf. I'm sure he'll
>>>expand
>>>his thoughts when he's ready to do so.
>>>
>>>Chad
>>>
>>
>> I was speaking as a matter of process, in general, for issues dealt with
>> here. In this specific case, my statement in that regard was not
>> appropriate. I don't need any 'evidence' provided 'on my behalf'.
>
>You never do.
>
That's unhelpful, Chad. What's so troubling about attempting to define
the issues here?
pame...@mindspring.com
pame...@mindspring.com
<doc...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
><pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:ni6gb252tpan0i98m...@4ax.com...
>> On 14 Jul 2006 14:50:10 -0400, "Dr. Chad Zimmerman"
>> <doc...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>
>>>From one that has repeatedly been shown to not know much on this subject,
>>>you sure speak with confidence about that which you probably know little
>>>about.
>>
>> Chad, you are making a habit of claiming that your incorrect opinions are
>> fact.
>
>If you'd bother to muster an argument with something substantial, I'd
>agree with you. However, I can't remember how many months its been since
>I've seen a post of yours that isn't cheering a play by play or completely
>void of information.
Your personal statements get by the censor; mine would not. (Wait,
you ARE the censor). Hardly a level field, Chad.
>
>>
>> Is it you who is unaware of the process being used to obtain information
>> about Ferrie? For it is that I am commenting on; not the recent issue
>> about the ring.
>
>I have no idea what *process* you're trying to get at here, Pamela. I do
>know that Blackburst knows infinitely more about Ferrie than you do.
You are missing the point. Roy is not a witness to Ferrie. He has
obtained information from others who *are*.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>At least Martin is defending it because he was probably close to the
>>>situation. You, on the other hand, have shown absolutely zero knowledge
>>>about any of it.
>>>
>>
>> Really? Apparently you have also forgotten how to Google, as you would
>> see that there have been past exchanges regarding Ferrie.
>
>Good. Post all that you know. By reading your posts, you cannot gain any
>knowledge about him, as you rarely provide any content by which to muster
>an argument.
How many witnesses have you broght to the research community Chad? How
aware are you of the issues involved in getting information from them?
>
>>
>>>How can someone that knows nothing about this actually pass judgement on
>>>one
>>>that was without any such evidence?
>>>
>>>Chad
>>
>> How can someone starting with a false axiom and using it to form a false
>> conclusion have validity? :-0
>
>Pamela, instead of throwing about these declarations-a -la- Pamela, why
>don't you actually provide a lucid argument? You just keep repeating the
>same idiotic phrases with the same pointless rhetoric. Perhaps you could
>*orient* yourself to a *level playing field* and feel *comfortable* doing
>so by providing evidence of your opinions. If not, please continue with
>the same non-sensical, pseudoacademic pointless vocabulary and conclusions
>sans evidence.
>
>Chad
Is this your way of telling us that you are clueless about bringing
forth new research into the community?
William Yates
> pame...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> Is it you who is unaware of the process being used to obtain information
>> about Ferrie? For it is that I am commenting on; not the recent issue
>> about the ring.
>
> documents and interviewing witnesses?
Nothing. It's just that Pamela prefers to claim Judyth is a "witness" to
Ferrie in NO in 1963. Thus what Judyth says is the truth, and documents
and other witnesses are only useful when they corroborate Judyth. If they
conflict with Judyth's account Pamela rejects them on the grounds that
Judyth is a "documented witness." You should remember her arbitrary
standards from the thread where the two of you argued over whether
Garrison could have seen mice cages in Ferrie's apartment the day Ferrie
died.
>
>> How can someone starting with a false axiom and using it to form a false
>> conclusion have validity?
>
> What's the false axiom in this case?
>
>> Pamela
>
>
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
Martin, how many ways are you and Howard going to spin this one?
It has already gone beyond laughable and into the realm of Ripley's.
Blackburst mentioned an "unusual ring".
Judyth said it was his "priestly ring" (no description).
She then calls it his big Bishop's ring or his Catholic ring (no
description).
Blackburst tells Howard 'Well' Platzman that it was a gargoyle ring.
Judyth then comes back with 'griffin'. Then she comes back with "gargoyle"
and describes it.
She characterized it as a ring she'd committed to memory years ago, but
*hesitated* to describe it.
Blackburst MADE THE RING UP!
You and Howard are spinning this to Judyth's behalf claiming the
clairvoyance of all clairvoyances and expect the NG to believe this yarn.
If I were you, Martin, I'd start getting pissed at a couple of other
people.
Chad
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e9a32m$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
James K. Olmstead
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:e9a131$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> You will find that it relates, in part, to discussions of the subject among herself, Ferrie and Oswald.
>
> Martin
However the vague refference has little or no value in providing insight
to the importance of the Queen of Spades and the FBI/NSA coverup.
Her vague mention of Moscow and Mexico are typical generalizations of only
the basic consideration.
Btw.....if she read and spoke Russian....why did she need Lee to
translate?
jko
>
> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:e94s0k$b...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>
>>>How many times, exactly, do I have to say that I'm here to DISCUSS the book, not to public chunks of it here to save
>>>you the trouble of reading it yourself?
>>>"The Queen of Spades" is discussed on pp. 127-8 (with notes 320-322).
>>>
>>>Martin
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ok........I'll research page 127-8 and the notes 320-322. I'm glad that
>> she actually puts forth material relating to the Queen of Spades in her
>> book. As I post on the Queen of Spades in the near future, please
>> feel free to jump in. You can also freely use the supporting evidence
>> I post....there's only a few pages from the Verona files but nobody
>> has ever put those pages with the Queen of Spades.
>>
>> I will not mention Baker until I do the research from her book........but
>> remember it must have some true value and not just filler or relate to
>> newsgroup postings or conflicts over the book.
>>
>> jko
>>
>>
>>
>>>James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ok..........Now does her book discuss the contents of the book or Oswald handling these books in any manner? This
>>>>is very important and I will be posting on this shortly in a seperate thread. There are alot of details that need
>>>>to be assembled from other files.
>>>>
>>>>The fact that the contents were never discussed in any of the posts, emails, published accounts or filmed interviews
>>>>is very critical, it is one area I thought would be later detailed in the book to establish her relationship with
>>>>Oswald in "the plot"....not love affair. To me it was the most important "smoking gun" evidence she could provide,
>>>>IF she had a very close relationship to Oswald in any 'plot" to kill Castro. I believe she brought up the Queen of
>>>>Spades first in our exchanges, I would have to access a hard drive not available to be sure, but I know I kept
>>>>waiting for her to expand on the issue beyond the "postings" on the subject.
>>>>
>>>>The details and memo's concerning the Queen of Spades is in fact a "Smoking Gun". However it can be used to
>>>>establish motive and intent for Oswald to kill JFK, easier then being used in defense of Oswald's degree of guilt.
>>>>
>>>>In fact if she had given me any indication that she knew the importance of the Queen of Spades, when we were in
>>>>direct contact, she would have won me over to support her story. If the book published, contains the "offical"
>>>>details concerning the Queen of Spades, I will state right now, that I will purchase her book, and back her 100%. I
>>>>will at my own expense travel to make contact with the son of the man who held the secret, the man directly
>>>>associated died in 1998 and make every effort to expand on the research. I didn't learn of the man's name until
>>>>earlier this year, it was not made available until 2002 and I came across it almost by accident, but had concerns
>>>>dealing with this issue since the mid 90's.
>>>>
>>>>The conflict here dealing with the Queen of Spades is far greater then Baker's story.
>>>>
>>>>If you really want to work on this it must be in public and on this fourm, just provide the details published in her
>>>>book on the Queen of Spades and let's progress. I don't have any problem with working with you or making public
>>>>work I've held close to the vest for over 10 years.
>>>>
>>>>James K. Olmstead
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:e91ehq$c...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The contents had nothing to do with the issue being discussed, Jim. That's why they weren't discussed in those
>>>>>posts.
>>>>>
>>>>>Martin
>>>>>
>>>>>James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Dr. Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message news:44b3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't know much about the Queen of Spades issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please fill us in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is valid evidence investigated by the FBI concerning the QofS,
>>>>>>however Baker does not present that aspect. Months of postings delt
>>>>>>with seeing a copy of this book....not the contents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I will dig my QofS files out.....I was looking at them the other day for
>>>>>>Stu Wexler, but he didn't call back.....I got catscans and xrays today......so
>>>>>>when I get back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>jko
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Chad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:44b2de71$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Glad you asked David......not real name but only name I can remember, If David Ferrie wore that
>>>>>>>>ring.....hundreds would know about it.....if he kept it to wear only on special occassions fewer would know
>>>>>>>>about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you have time Chad don't forget about the Queen of Spades......that's a very interesting area that avoids the
>>>>>>>>main issue in association with Oswald. BTW I have a copy of the same "booklet" and it's more tan then grey.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>jko
>>>>>>>>
James K. Olmstead
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:e9a1bj$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> She contacted me after McAdams began posting here about the Salon columns in April of 1999. My first message from her
> was that May.
> We didn't mention Weberman to her at all--but I do recall when someone did, a year or so later, and she thought she
> had found buried treasure--it was pretty clear she hadn't been aware the site existed. By then, of course, she had
> already detailed her account to Howard and myself, a condition we insisted on before directing her toward ANY other
> information.
>
> Martin
>
So you did in fact direct her to information she could use after May of
2000 (a year later).....is that correct?
jko
>> jko
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>That's ok Martin.....you just confirmed my position.
>>>>
>>>>jko
>>>>
>>>>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:e928st$b...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm sorry, Jim, but you've given me no reason to do your research for you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Martin
>>>>>
>>>>>James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
howardp
> > Unfortunately, even if I accepted your "correction," the same flaw exists
> > as I mentioned in my long e-mail: ONLY AN IMBECILE WOULD DESCRIBE
> > SOMETHING SHE KNOWS SHE NEVER SAW BUT HAS EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE YOU HAD
> > DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF.
>
> Not so. She is told it existed, so she pretends to have seen it, but not
> to recall it too well. Not knowing that BB was making the whole thing up,
> where's the risk ? Where's the imbecility ?
Duh, she hasn't a prayer of getting any closer to an accurate description
by sheer guesswork because her memory couldn't possibly come to her
rescue. Would you like to repeat why you thinking a blind guess is no more
dangerous than saying "I don't recall"?
As for the chronology, whenever I might have heard from Blackburst that it
was a gargoyle, I didn't ever turn to Judyth and say, "it's a gargoyle,
can you describe it in more detail?" And if he had asked for more detail,
it would be kind of silly for her to take issue with him and say, "no, it
was a griffin." After all, he would know the answer to his own question,
wouldn't he?
H
black...@aol.com
Sorry. I thought you were referring to me.