Where is Baker's book?
SDL
"Sorry! That item is not available at this time!"
http://www.trafford.com/06-0632
What happened?
Steve L.
Kenneth A. Rahn
"SDL" <sdl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44a0839f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
See Dave Reitzes's posts below for a pretty good guess.
Ken Rahn
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
happening. It has nothing to do with the book's content.
Martin
chuck schuyler wrote:
> Martin Shackelford wrote:
>
>>Nobody's guessed right yet, based on what Dave posted.
>>
>>Martin
>
>
>
> Martin, it sounds like you know the reason why the book is currently
> unavailable. Why don't you clue us in?
>
>
Tom Lowry
here ? Tom Lowry
chuck schuyler
wrote:
> Martin Shackelford wrote:
> >
> > Martin
>
>
Tom Lowry
here ? Tom Lowry
chuck schuyler
wrote:
> Martin Shackelford wrote:
> >
> > Martin
>
>
pame...@mindspring.com
wrote:
And why is Ken Rahn apparently comfortable jumping to any sort of
conclusion regarding these posts from Reitzes which anyone can see are
merely trolls? :-0
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Kenneth A. Rahn
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:l1gaa29lhocb5019p...@4ax.com...
I'm not sure that offering factual information should be considered
trolling.
Further, I said "pretty good guess."
Ken Rahn
Martin Shackelford
Martin
chuck schuyler wrote:
> Martin Shackelford wrote:
>
>>I've said several times that I can't do that as long as legal action is
>>happening. It has nothing to do with the book's content.
>>
>>Martin
>>
>
> Why? Are you involved? If not, post the reason.
>
>
pame...@mindspring.com
Ken,
You are far too sophisticated a scholar to consider Reitzes posts
'factual information'. I am a bit surprised.
And yet, your support of them tends to confirm my hypothesis that the
more running around in circles that's going on about Judyth's book,
the more value it must have.
Chad Zimmerman
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:dfvda25ovkib5foe7...@4ax.com...
Pamela, have you factually rebutted anything Reitzes has written? No. You
pleaded with him to read the book first, then post. You, yourself, had no
idea what the book contains. I also venture to think that you still don't.
>
> And yet, your support of them tends to confirm my hypothesis that the
> more running around in circles that's going on about Judyth's book,
> the more value it must have.
More speculation without reading the book, which is essentially what
you've been a critic of.
Chad
pame...@mindspring.com
wrote:
Oh, thanks for jumping into the thread and making my point for me.
Reitzes has not read the book either, and yet is comfortable making
misstatements about Judyth and publishing them as 'fact' in such a way
that even Ken seems to have bought in on it.
I hope I have a good working knowledge of Judyth's statements and of
the environment of NOLA in the summer of 63, as I have been
researching them for the last year or so. Anyone could do that
through the information already available. One would have to be
hopelessly naive not to see the distortions Reitzes pages present.
>
>>
>> And yet, your support of them tends to confirm my hypothesis that the
>> more running around in circles that's going on about Judyth's book,
>> the more value it must have.
>
>More speculation without reading the book, which is essentially what
>you've been a critic of.
>
Indeed, I am discussing the reaction of this ng to the publication of
Judyth's book. Ken has not read it, and is comfortable supporting
Reitzes erroneous pages. You have at least looked at its covers and
have yet to post on its contents, saying that you need more time. and
yet you seem to have lots of time to post here...
Pamela :-)
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Barb Junkkarinen
Pamela, could you list some of the "distortions" you've noted on
Reitzes "erroneous pages"?
Thanks,
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Propaganda is propaganda--why waste time on it?
>
>Martin
Neither one of you really want there to be any discussion on this ---
becomes more and more clear everyday.
Heck of a way to promote a book, Martin.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 4 Jul 2006 14:58:11 -0400, pame...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>Pamela, could you list some of the "distortions" you've noted on
>Reitzes "erroneous pages"?
>
>Thanks,
>Barb :-)
This is an open opportunity for Pamela to help move things
forward....as she likes to say and likes to say she'll ignore anything
that doesn't move things forward.
Here's a chance to make a real contribution to discussion and to move
things forward.
Will she take it?
I'm guessing no.
Prove me wrong, Pamela.
paul seaton
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e8fbk4$i...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Propaganda is propaganda--why waste time on it?
Don't you have to "waste" at least some time on it in order to have any idea
whether or not it really is "propaganda" ?
Arbitrarily calling an argument 'propaganda' & refusing to discuss it on
that basis looks very thin, Martin.
--
Paul Seaton
pame...@mindspring.com
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 18:38:20 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On 4 Jul 2006 14:58:11 -0400, pame...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>>Pamela, could you list some of the "distortions" you've noted on
>>Reitzes "erroneous pages"?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Barb :-)
>
>This is an open opportunity for Pamela to help move things
>forward....as she likes to say and likes to say she'll ignore anything
>that doesn't move things forward.
>
>Here's a chance to make a real contribution to discussion and to move
>things forward.
>
>Will she take it?
>
>I'm guessing no.
>
>Prove me wrong, Pamela.
>
>Barb :-)
>>
How could anyone prove you wrong, Barb? I don't have the time that
you seem to have and the number of words I've posted on aaj is a mere
fraction of what you have managed to contribute.
Reitzes pages are label Judyth a 'hoax'. Are we not able to grab a
clue from that as to his orientation?
http://www.jfk-online.com/judythstory.html#N_99_
Reitzes takes a lot of his information from the notorious McAdams
pages which have been discussed repeatedly here.
What, may we ask, do you find so compelling about them?
Pamela
Barb Junkkarinen
Haven't read them actually. But it's your claims I am interested in
and asked about. Imagine my surprise when you did the dip, dive and
divert rather than "moving discussion forward" by actually naming the
"distortions" you see on the "erroneous pages" .... NOT. As predicted.
Barb :-)
>
>
>www.in-broad-daylight.com
Chad Zimmerman
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:msvka2lomeea5g9ct...@4ax.com...
Someone had to.
> Reitzes has not read the book either, and yet is comfortable making
> misstatements about Judyth and publishing them as 'fact' in such a way
> that even Ken seems to have bought in on it.
Several researchers had read an initial draft and had read many of her
emails
and claims through various sources, Pamela. His critique is based on
Judyth's own
words, from her own mouth (or hands).
>
> I hope I have a good working knowledge of Judyth's statements and of
> the environment of NOLA in the summer of 63, as I have been
> researching them for the last year or so. Anyone could do that
> through the information already available.
Yep, which she has also done a ton of...
One would have to be
> hopelessly naive not to see the distortions Reitzes pages present.
Name 3 distortions and explain why they are distortions without using
Judyth's words
as testimony to the fact.
>>
>>>
>>> And yet, your support of them tends to confirm my hypothesis that the
>>> more running around in circles that's going on about Judyth's book,
>>> the more value it must have.
>>
>>More speculation without reading the book, which is essentially what
>>you've been a critic of.
>>
> Indeed, I am discussing the reaction of this ng to the publication of
> Judyth's book.
No, you're complaining about Dave's webpage, using the book's publishing as
a crutch in this post.
Ken has not read it, and is comfortable supporting
> Reitzes erroneous pages.
Name the errors.
You have at least looked at its covers and
> have yet to post on its contents,
I have, but not much. There are some things that I won't discuss yet.
saying that you need more time. and
> yet you seem to have lots of time to post here...
Yes. Book at home. NG at work. 700 pages takes lots of time (plus 1353
source notes), typing
a post doesn't. Funny that you equate the two very different things.
Chad
>
> Pamela :-)
> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
Chad Zimmerman
<pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:r7rna2lckd8su9i25...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 08:14:16 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
> <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 18:38:20 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 4 Jul 2006 14:58:11 -0400, pame...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>>
>>>Pamela, could you list some of the "distortions" you've noted on
>>>Reitzes "erroneous pages"?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Barb :-)
>>
>>This is an open opportunity for Pamela to help move things
>>forward....as she likes to say and likes to say she'll ignore anything
>>that doesn't move things forward.
>>
>>Here's a chance to make a real contribution to discussion and to move
>>things forward.
>>
>>Will she take it?
>>
>>I'm guessing no.
>>
>>Prove me wrong, Pamela.
>>
>>Barb :-)
>>>
> How could anyone prove you wrong, Barb?
Yeah, don't try.
> I don't have the time that
> you seem to have and the number of words I've posted on aaj is a mere
> fraction of what you have managed to contribute.
Yet you have time to post...which is the argument you tried on me.
>
> Reitzes pages are label Judyth a 'hoax'. Are we not able to grab a
> clue from that as to his orientation?
More *orienting*...;-)
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/judythstory.html#N_99_
>
> Reitzes takes a lot of his information from the notorious McAdams
> pages which have been discussed repeatedly here.
Which are often backed up with source notes, emails, etc. - the same type
of stuff you can find in Judyth's book!...but McA's is bad, Judyth's good,
eh?
>
> What, may we ask, do you find so compelling about them?
She asked YOU the question and you don't want to apparently research any of
them. So,
to shorten the load, you're asking her to make a list for you to refute.
Chad
>
> Pamela
>
>
> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
Martin Shackelford
Pamela and I were both talking about the old garbage on Dave Reitzes'
webpages--not about the book. What is your problem?
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Chad. I recall an uncorrected piece of a chapter being slipped to
McAdams, but that hardly fits your description. None of her attackers
ever read "an initial draft" of her book. Not one.
As for "several researchers" having read "many of her e-mails," a few of
her attackers selectively slipped a handful out-of-context e-mails to
McAdams--but even fewer than one would suppose, as many of the "Judyth
e-mails" turn out to be e-mails from OTHER people paraphrasing what they
claim to have heard from her--not even quotes. Perhaps this is what you
mean by "claims from various sources." To claim the paraphrases and
out-of-context material as using "Judyth's own words" isn't even
TECHNICALLY correct as to the paraphrases.
You want to know what some of the distortions are on Retizes' web page? OK:
1) The title is a distortion:"Judyth Vary Baker: The Story So Far
(According to Judyth Vary Baker, Martin Shackelford, and Howard
Platzman, Ph.D.)" The article doesn't represent an accurate picture of
what Judyth, Howard or I have said at all.
2) It refers to the outline which Howard worked on as an ongoing
project, and implies that it is the manuscript of her book--but Howard
did not co-author her book. They worked at one time on a draft together,
but no one here has ever quoted from it, so it's a good bet they've
never read it. Judyth made comments on each draft, but didn't
"co-author" any of them.
3) Reitzes cites Howard as describing me as Judyth's "lead researcher."
I attempted to looked up Howard's cited e-mail of September 22, 2002 in
the Google archive, but Google found NO postings by Howard for that
month to alt.assassination.jfk This may be an error, but it makes it
difficult to check the context--and Reitzes doesn't quote the e-mail,
but offers his own paraphrase of it. I have never been Judyth's "lead
researcher" in any sense connected with the writing of her book.
4) He cites as "one of her contradictions" that she said she worked on a
CIA anti-Castro project, and then said she wasn't a CIA employee.
Apparently people not CIA employees never work on CIA-related projects,
in Dave's mind.
5) He cites an another contradiction that she said she spoke some
Russian when she was "introduced" to Lee Harvey Oswald, and that she met
Oswald through a series of events connected with Dr. Sherman. Anyone who
has read the book knows there is no contradiction here. There is a long
string of false alleged "contradictions." He manages to find FOUR
"contradictory versions" on this subject, by taking things out of context.
6) Another "contradiction" is that Oswald worked by the CIA, but wasn't
a CIA employee--same problem as in number 4--he worked for another
agency and was used by the CIA.
7) Another "contradiction" is the statement that she and Oswald seem to
appear in the same film frame, and that she and Oswald "don't appear in
a photograph together.) No photograph of "Oswald and Judyth together"
exists, but a film frame does seem to show Judyth in the area when
Oswald did his second leafletting--no one has ever claimed that the
frame shows "Judyth standing next to Oswald," as Dave claims. If it
wasn't Judyth, it was someone of similar build and hair wearing a dress
in a pattern that Judyth owned. He adds, AS A CONTRADICTION, that there
was a photo of Judyth and Oswald together which no longer exists. There
is no contradiction there at all.
8) He includes a "contradiction" that her husband may have been given a
job that kept him away, and then that he SOUGHT the job. The problem
here is one of chronology--in the first instance, she was speculating,
and in the second, she LATER ran across a letter from Robert to the
company requesting the job, which changed her mind on the subject. He
tries to turn this one into FOUR contradictions.
9) Another "contradiction" is the statement that she met Jack Ruby once,
and that she also SAW him at the 500 Club. Reitzes pretends that SEEING
him at a club is the same as having a second "meeting" with him,
although they had no interaction at the Club, and there is no indication
that Ruby even saw HER on that occasion. He pulls a similar dodge in
connection with Guy Banister, and with Clay Shaw, and with Carlos Marcello.
10) Dave really outdoes himself on the subject of David Atlee
Phillips--he tries to turn the matter into TWENTY-FOUR separate
contradictions, which is an exercise in pure absurdity.
That covers 52 of his 114 "points," and is enough time wasted on this.
Much of this has been pointed out in the past, but it doesn't seem to
have made a dent in some of the harder heads here.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
waste any more time on his mean-spirited, distorted web pages. They are
propaganda, pure and simple.
Martin
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Pamela's intelligent enough to ignore your obvious baiting, Barb.
>
>Martin
It was an honest question, Martin. Looks like Pamela chose to put all
that intelligence to use creating a Barb-baiting thread instead of
actually launching a discussion on something SHE brought up. :-)
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
"Which are often backed up with source notes, emails, etc."--missing
both the quality and the nature of many of the sources, which are
e-mails ABOUT Judyth from those attacking her--hardly good sources for
an objective evaluation.
Martin
Chad Zimmerman
> "Several researchers had read an initial draft" of her book? Name one,
> Chad. I recall an uncorrected piece of a chapter being slipped to McAdams,
> but that hardly fits your description. None of her attackers ever read "an
> initial draft" of her book.
Deadly Alliance was what, exactly?
Not one.
> As for "several researchers" having read "many of her e-mails," a few of
> her attackers selectively slipped a handful out-of-context e-mails to
> McAdams--but even fewer than one would suppose, as many of the "Judyth
> e-mails" turn out to be e-mails from OTHER people paraphrasing what they
> claim to have heard from her--not even quotes.
Martin, lots of Judyth's own words have circulated all over the place.
Lots of them. Do you think that you're on the receiving end of those?
Perhaps this is what you
> mean by "claims from various sources." To claim the paraphrases and
> out-of-context material as using "Judyth's own words" isn't even
> TECHNICALLY correct as to the paraphrases.
> You want to know what some of the distortions are on Retizes' web page?
> OK:
> 1) The title is a distortion:"Judyth Vary Baker: The Story So Far
> (According to Judyth Vary Baker, Martin Shackelford, and Howard Platzman,
> Ph.D.)" The article doesn't represent an accurate picture of what Judyth,
> Howard or I have said at all.
Yeah, it uses exact quotations, Martin. You claim they are out of context.
So, supply the context.
> 2) It refers to the outline which Howard worked on as an ongoing project,
> and implies that it is the manuscript of her book--but Howard did not
> co-author her book. They worked at one time on a draft together, but no
> one here has ever quoted from it, so it's a good bet they've never read
> it. Judyth made comments on each draft, but didn't "co-author" any of
> them.
So, you're saying that they did co-author...something, but that nobody has
read it. Are you also implying that none of that coauthored material ever
became a part of the book?
> 3) Reitzes cites Howard as describing me as Judyth's "lead researcher." I
> attempted to looked up Howard's cited e-mail of September 22, 2002 in the
> Google archive, but Google found NO postings by Howard for that month to
> alt.assassination.jfk This may be an error, but it makes it difficult to
> check the context--and Reitzes doesn't quote the e-mail, but offers his
> own paraphrase of it. I have never been Judyth's "lead researcher" in any
> sense connected with the writing of her book.
Not sure what you're upset about here, other than you don't want to be
referred to as a "lead researcher", although I'm sure you've done your
fair share of research on this matter, right? Heck, Judyth even says as
much in some of her writings, claiming that you and Howard were principle
investigators.
> 4) He cites as "one of her contradictions" that she said she worked on a
> CIA anti-Castro project, and then said she wasn't a CIA employee.
> Apparently people not CIA employees never work on CIA-related projects, in
> Dave's mind.
If you are an employee on a project where the primary employer is the CIA,
wouldn't that, directly or indirectly, make you a CIA employee- whether
you knew it or not?
> 5) He cites an another contradiction that she said she spoke some Russian
> when she was "introduced" to Lee Harvey Oswald, and that she met Oswald
> through a series of events connected with Dr. Sherman. Anyone who has read
> the book knows there is no contradiction here. There is a long string of
> false alleged "contradictions." He manages to find FOUR "contradictory
> versions" on this subject, by taking things out of context.
He quoted material. Why don't you supply us with the full context original
material?
> 6) Another "contradiction" is that Oswald worked by the CIA, but wasn't a
> CIA employee--same problem as in number 4--he worked for another agency
> and was used by the CIA.
Did the CIA financially support 'the program'? If so, would he have been
an indirect employee of a project funded by the CIA?
> 7) Another "contradiction" is the statement that she and Oswald seem to
> appear in the same film frame, and that she and Oswald "don't appear in a
> photograph together.) No photograph of "Oswald and Judyth together"
> exists, but a film frame does seem to show Judyth in the area when Oswald
> did his second leafletting--no one has ever claimed that the frame shows
> "Judyth standing next to Oswald," as Dave claims. If it wasn't Judyth, it
> was someone of similar build and hair wearing a dress in a pattern that
> Judyth owned. He adds, AS A CONTRADICTION, that there was a photo of
> Judyth and Oswald together which no longer exists. There is no
> contradiction there at all.
That one is a stretch. Of course, her being there is also a stretch and
one has to believe her in order to conclude such.
> 8) He includes a "contradiction" that her husband may have been given a
> job that kept him away, and then that he SOUGHT the job. The problem here
> is one of chronology--in the first instance, she was speculating, and in
> the second, she LATER ran across a letter from Robert to the company
> requesting the job, which changed her mind on the subject. He tries to
> turn this one into FOUR contradictions.
It is odd that, in 40+ years, she didn't ever know that Robert sought the
job, Martin. She has mentioned numerous times that she thought his job had
been arranged to keep him away from her. Then, all of a sudden, that is
abandoned and he had sought the job. Why on earth would she not have known
that?
It makes you wonder how many other claims she's made are figments of her
imagination, but you may not have been able to find documentation to the
contrary so she could get the story straight.
> 9) Another "contradiction" is the statement that she met Jack Ruby once,
> and that she also SAW him at the 500 Club. Reitzes pretends that SEEING
> him at a club is the same as having a second "meeting" with him, although
> they had no interaction at the Club, and there is no indication that Ruby
> even saw HER on that occasion. He pulls a similar dodge in connection with
> Guy Banister, and with Clay Shaw, and with Carlos Marcello.
Yet, she then states that they all walked together as a group to Shaw's
house, but that this, in her mind, isn't a meeting. So, they didn't talk,
but they were right there.
> 10) Dave really outdoes himself on the subject of David Atlee Phillips--he
> tries to turn the matter into TWENTY-FOUR separate contradictions, which
> is an exercise in pure absurdity.
> That covers 52 of his 114 "points," and is enough time wasted on this.
> Much of this has been pointed out in the past, but it doesn't seem to have
> made a dent in some of the harder heads here.
That's because some of those harder heads don't buy her story and see
contradictions in her story over the years. It is really odd how so many
things evolved over the years, Martin. She made dismissive denials about
ever having mentioned Cancun, then...after Deb pointed out 'Kankun' and
other things, then it was back to having mentioned 'Cancun'. It's like she
goes where the evidence is, even when it goes against her prior comments.
1. LHO meeting- At first, it was Ochsner that sent LHO or Ferrie that sent
LHO. Then, in the book, its a total coincidence based upon 'Jaryo',
'Rourke' and simplistic Russian. So, 35+ years later, she's convinced it
was Ochsner or Ferrie that set up the LHO meeting, but 40+ years later, it
becomes happenstance based upon things that you knew when she was
speculating the other stuff. She allegedly spent all this time with LHO
and didn't know this? Not even after being brought into the super secret,
clandestine operation where, seemingly, all was discussed?
2. Robert, whom she married, began looking for jobs in NO (as per Judyth
in 2000), then she changes her mind and he was set up with a job to keep
him from her (as per Judyth in 2000). Then, oops, no, Robert had sought
the job and Ochnser had nothing to do with it. Again, this should be
something she should know, not speculate on. Why the hell would his
looking for a job, applying for the job and getting the job all be such
foreign material between her and Robert?
3. Cancun- When Lifton mentioned this, she absolutely and unequivocably
denied it. Then, when he made it public that it was tape-recorded, she
waned. In the book, it becomes legit once again as an area of Mexico-
Kankun. If Lifton hadn't pressed the issue and Deb had not found the
information, I wonder if that would've been lost to posterity. Once again,
Judyth going the way of the current.
Chad
Drei...@aol.com
> Re: Where is Baker's book?
> From: Martin Shackelford
> Date: Thurs, Jul 6 2006 7:46 am Email: Martin Shackelford
<_msh...@concentric.net_ (mailto:msh...@concentric.net) >
> Groups: alt.assassination.jfk
[...]
> 3) Reitzes cites Howard as describing me as Judyth's "lead researcher."
> I attempted to looked up Howard's cited e-mail of September 22, 2002 in
> the Google archive, but Google found NO postings by Howard for that
> month to alt.assassination.jfk This may be an error, but it makes it
> difficult to check the context--and Reitzes doesn't quote the e-mail,
> but offers his own paraphrase of it. I have never been Judyth's "lead
> researcher" in any sense connected with the writing of her book.
Platzman: "And, let's be clear: Martin is not a co-author; he is our lead
researcher, if you will."
Here's the complete post:
<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------------
Subject: Judyth and the newsgroup
From: _ho...@aol.com_ (mailto:ho...@aol.com) (Howpl)
Date: 9/22/02 4:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <_20020922012257...@mb-cq.aol.com_
(mailto:20020922012257...@mb-cq.aol.com) >
All -
I have very little time to devote to the newsgroup, so pardon me, please,
for not responding to each of you who have written in response to my
earlier post. I appreciate that it isn't exactly fair for me to "post and
run," but I have a very busy life that revolves around a full-time job, a
wife, two school-age children, and, believe it or not, commitments and
interests other than the JFK assassination. For this reason, but not for
this reason alone, I no longer publish here regularly. I simply couldn't
keep up even if I wanted to.
However, there are a few things I'd like to say, for the record. If you
insist on a response to each of the 30 e-mails sure to follow, I can't
promise you one. If you want to interpret that as ducking your question,
that is your right. It is not my intention.
1. Somone whose post I can't now locate -- but someone who identified
himself as a conspiracist -- wrote that he found John McAdams to be a
reasonable man. I don't know if John remembers, but the fact is that I
stood up for him at least a half-dozen times during the period of a year
or two that I was active in this newsgroup. But that was when I was on the
outside looking in. His handling of Judyth's story -- or the drippings of
it he has had fed to him -- have forced me to revise my opinion. It has
been suggested by more than one person that we have an even better book to
publish about who "done us wrong" and how. John done us wrong pretty bad.
I no longer recognize him as a "moderator" when he asks Mary Ferrell's
permission to post her phony denunciation of Judyth on his site but never
once asked Judyth's permission to post letters from her to others -- not
him. He clearly uses a double standard. Another example: his willingness
to publish Lifton's charges that Martin and I are con artists over and
over again, while refusing to publish much milder responses by so-called
Team Judyth. I refuse to write a book detailing all of his dishonesty
because it's just not the best use of my time.
2. Mary Ferrell's supposed denuncation is, as noted above, a complete
fraud. It is only the kindness of Judyth that prevents me, for now, from
presenting incontrovertible proof that Mary Ferrell knows that Judyth is
the genuine article. Martin and others we've sought advice from do not
want to upset a woman who is ill and simply wants to be left alone. I was
and remain the lone dissenting vote. Sorry. I look at how her self-styled
friends used Mary to destroy Judyth and, while I have some pity for her
(because they have dirtied her and she knows it), I do not respect her
needs nearly as much as the primary victim does. Those who know Judyth
know she has a huge heart and is quick to forgive. Judyth is truly the
second patsy. There is a truly ugly story here, which has ended with Mary
being whisked away to an "assisted living" facility, with the wagons
circled around her after she made her position on Judyth -- and, quite
specifically, on the newsgroup post -- abundantly clear to three persons
other than Judyth, Martin, and me. And their testimony is only a little of
what we've got to prove the post was a faked pastiche of old e-mails
discussing resolved issues.
3. Judyth has variously been described as addle-brained and a brilliant
researcher who has "inserted herself" into the tiny holes she discovered
in Lee's life. The real Judyth is of the absent-minded professor type.
She is, in fact, disorganized and emotional, but she is smart and quite
sane. The suggestion that she is delusional is a slander that McAdam's is
only to happy to publish without any evidence whatsoever -- except for the
way her e-mails strike him (yes, they ramble) or Rose the Dime-Store-
Psychologist's observation that Judyth "speaks fast" (I never noticed it;
we all speak pretty fast here in the Big Apple). We have decisively
refuted this slander by the most objective of measures. Anyone doubting
this need only ask for a lawsuit or wait for the book.
4. When will the book come out? I don't know. David Lifton promised to do
everything in his power to prevent the book from being published. He and
his friends have fed lies to stoke preexisting fears. It is they who
stirred Rose into contacting CBS, which was instrumental (she was, indeed,
their instrument) in scaring them off -- but not after spending more time
waffling on doing a story than on any other story they ever considered
doing (this they told us amidst awkward apologies). But they did get some
good, supportive evidence, which we were happy about, and they did find us
important allies, who have researched aspects of her story on their own.
5. So why didn't 60 Minutes bite? I take some of the blame for pointing
them in the direction of a key witness who denied saying what has been
elsewhere attributabed to him. Ultimately, however, the answer should be
obvious to anyone with their eyes open. They got scared. They blinked.
They wanted a smoking gun. When you come right down to it, the mainstream
press always wants a smoking gun on this subject, though it will accept
the flimsiest of evidence to air "shocking revelations" on other subjects.
Every assassination writer knows the difficulty of getting "reputable"
journalists and scholars to risk their reputations by going anywhere near
the assassination. Telling her he believed her, Mike Wallace stated very
clearly that they couldn't afford to be wrong like when they told the
world where Jimmy Hoffa was buried. He was being honest.
Even old stalwarts, like Robert Sam Anson, who I called out of the blue,
run like the devil when they begin to contemplate the jeering they will
face the moment a pro-conspiracy article hits the stands with their
byline. Anson got killed after his pieces in Vanity Fair. Just the words
"new witness" were sufficient to have him declare "no interest" and hang
up the phone. Why do you think Robert Tanenbaum wrote his tell-all in the
form of a novel? Because, like the lead character in his Corruption of
Blood, which you should all read, he is horrified at the thought of being
pegged a "buff" -- i.e., a nut -- by his peers.
5. Enough with Cancun! This Cancun nonsense represents 1 1/100,000 of
Judyth's story. It is Debra Conway's one claim to scholarship. It is
ludicrous to see so much written about it. There are many details that
needed clarifying - indeed, some continue to arise - when writing with a
co-author and an "active" agent. I couldn't possibly tell you who wrote
what first in each and every sentence of the manuscript. Does that mean
that I am a liar? Co-authoring is not nearly as easy as I expected,
especially when you live thousands of miles from your partner. The
internet is not like talking or looking at text together. And, let's be
clear: Martin is not a co-author; he is our lead researcher, if you will.
For the record, someone other than me wrote "Cancun" first. How would I
know where they planned to meet if I didn't see it in a note I took or a
page I read? So it remained in the manuscript until it was "caught." So
the area she was referring to was not known as Cancun in 1963. So what?
In the full panorama of Judyth's story, this is a mere speck. When you
write your memoirs, you can easily mix the way you know things now with
the way you knew it back when. What brand of gasoline did you put in your
car 40 years ago? Esso or Exxon? What was the airport you used to fly
out of 40 years ago? Kennedy or Ildewild? Heck, I can't even remember how
to spell what they called it before it was renamed in the honor of our
slain president. The fact that McAdams would use this "error" in his
classes as a perfect "I gotcha" would be laughable if it weren't so
appallingly simple-minded. How many "mistakes" were there in Posner's
book, John? I am quite ready to conceed that a good number of them were
genuine mistakes. Sometimes I have trouble reading my own notes, too.
If anyone chooses to find Cancun and other such tiny matters suspicious,
be my guest. You will have to spend 25 hours a day, 8 days a week
disproving all the book's other statements if, that is, "researchers"
like Lifton permit it to be published.
With apologies to the majority of those who post here - those without
personal agendas and outsized egos - the McAdams/Lifton newsgroup gets
nothing from us unless Judyth says it's OK. She has already written a
virtual book in response to the inanities uttered here, but mostly for the
record. She chooses not to subject herself to mindless and/or professional
hostility.
It is quite amazing: in all the time since Matt leaked his misshapen
version of her story (further misshapen by the wolves who pounced upon
it), no one has evidenced much interest in the heart of her story.
Anyone really interested in Judyth's story should long ago have looked
into the activities of Dr. Alton Ochsner. It is a measure of the
superficiality of McAdams et al. that this key figure in Judyth's story
remains an unknown in this group. Instead of badgering a poor woman trying
to remember her youth as well as she can, why not do some real research?
It's not been easy for us because none of us makes our living off the
assassination, but we have done what we can.
Howard Platzman
<QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------------
Dave
Drei...@aol.com
(http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/80253165186b6121/53223d575e3ca868?lnk=st&q=judyth&rnum=2&hl=en#53223d575e3ca868)
Dave
Martin Shackelford
seem to be proliferating.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
assembled by Howard Platzman, on which Judyth would comment. He would
add things as he had time, or as he received them, or as he had time to
go through the documentation she had sent us. Any description of the
outlines as "early drafts" of her book would be incorrect. In terms of
the book, "Deadly Alliance" was nothing. They were separate.
Her book manuscript was completed, in its essentials, by January 1999.
If she recalled something else later, she would add it--or if she
located additional documentation--but the essentials were all there
before she ever contacted us. Her son and Dr. Joe Reitzes, however, saw
her original 1998 letters to the son, from which the manuscript was drawn.
I have literally yards thick of "Judyth's words." You were fed a
fraction of an inch of fragments carefully selected. You were used--not
that it was difficult. You refer to "exact quotations," but only some
were from Judyth--others were "exact quotations" from people attacking
her and claiming she said or did this or that--or that Howard did, in
one notorious instance. If you want context, read the book.
The co-authored effort, running to about 300 pages (I've read it), was
discarded, and Judyth went back to her original manuscript.
I've always done research to learn more about the assassination. I've
never been doing research "for Judyth," and I certainly wasn't doing
research for her book. Howard and I were "principal investigators" OF
her account and whether it was accurate and supported by evidence. The
implication was that we were investigating FOR her book.
On the subject of CIA employment--if the CIA does the work through
another organization, one is NOT employed by the CIA, but by whoever is
doing the project for them. It's called contracting. If a builder was
constructing a new wing at Langley, would you be claiming that they were
"a CIA employee"? Stop weaseling these issues, John.
Context is only part of the problem--false contradictions is the main
one. The fact that "he quotes material" doesn't mean he uses it honestly.
As for "one has to believe her," we do in fact have more than her word.
We have the frames from the film, showing the women near Oswald; we have
a photo of Judyth wearing a dress of the exact same pattern as a woman
whose hair and general appearance resemble Judyth closely. But I forgot
that you are a coincidence theorist. It's also interesting that it's the
only bit of all the leafletting footage that shows him smiling.
Robert's job: not long ago, she ran across a receipt--on the back of it
was a draft of the letter Robert sent to the company. She had never
looked at the back of the receipt before. She is willing to correct
errors where she has made them--she is very determined to recount things
as accurately as she can.
Regarding number 9, you are responding to several things with a comment
that doesn't apply to all of them.
Try to get this straight, finally, John. She mentioned Cancun to
indicate the AREA where they were going, as it was the name most people
would recognize. Their destination was the Mayan ruins in Yucatan. Your
claim that she "goes where the evidence is" is very slippery. Her
account is based on a combination of memory and saved documentation. Her
account is not SHAPED by later evidence.
What idiot told you that in a "clandestine operation" the norm is that
"all is discussed"? Wow.
Robert's job (again)--she thought he was looking for jobs in the New
Orleans area--many years later, she found the draft of his letter, which
showed that he was looking specically for a job on the Gulf. Robert
wasn't exactly one to share his thoughts, as his children confirm.
Regarding his "tape recording," Lifton hasn't made ANYTHING "public"
except unsupported claims. He said the taping was perfectly legal, but
then wouldn't share it unless Judyth would sign a release--suggesting
that there WAS a question about its legality. I repeatedly said if it
was legal, he should go ahead and share it. Silence--except for the
newsgroup pack who insisted that it was MY obligation to get Judyth to
sign the requested release, to make the "legal" tape--what, legal?
As for Cancun, you already know that it's been on the maps of Yucatan
since 1787. I can't believe you're still pushing that nonsense.
You seem not only to be hastening to defend the propaganda of Dave
Reitzes, but to be doing it very ineptly.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
I have always done my own research--I don't do research for other people.
I am assuming that what Howard meant was that, of the three of us, I had
done the most previous research on the case.
So you took one tiny fragment from a very long e-mail--from the rest of
which you seem to have learned very little--placed your own
interpretation on it, and then presented your interpretation as a fact.
You did this a lot on your webpage, Dave.
That's how propaganda is done, not objective evidence evaluation.
Read Howard's post again, Dave--this time carefully and with an effort
to avoid preconceived notions. You might learn something.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Howard--some who are newer here might find it very enlightening, in view
of what you and others have been trying to purvey.
Martin
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>"Looks like," "Translation:," "in other words," etc.--McAdams clones
>seem to be proliferating.
Shame on you. You're smarter than this, Martin.
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
[....]
>Regarding number 9, you are responding to several things with a comment
>that doesn't apply to all of them.
>Try to get this straight, finally, John. She mentioned Cancun to
>indicate the AREA where they were going, as it was the name most people
>would recognize.
But she didn't make that distinction, didn't explain that until after
it was all over the net that Cancun didn't exist then.
>Their destination was the Mayan ruins in Yucatan. Your
>claim that she "goes where the evidence is" is very slippery. Her
>account is based on a combination of memory and saved documentation. Her
>account is not SHAPED by later evidence.
So you say. But Martin, because you say things does not make them fact
... it doesn't even make them compelling when things keep changing
with the wind depending on what new thing crops up.
Doesn't matter what crops up ... there's always an excuse ... or an
explanation.
We've all seen hundreds of explanations. What people have been asking
for and waiting for are documented facts.
Those are few and far between ... so far. We're still waiting.
Any word on when the book will be available again?
Barb :-)
R J Johnson
>> Re: Where is Baker's book?
>> From: Martin Shackelford
>> Date: Thurs, Jul 6 2006 7:46 am Email: Martin Shackelford
>> I attempted to looked up Howard's cited e-mail of September 22, 2002 in
>> the Google archive, but Google found NO postings by Howard for that
>
> researcher, if you will."
And what a crackerjack researcher Martin has shown himself to be. Can't
even manage a simple Google search. Guess they got what they paid for.
It's no wonder Judyth sought out Martin and Howard.
---- R. J. Johnson
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
> You refer to the stuff on the worthless McAdams webpage on Judyth as
> "Which are often backed up with source notes, emails, etc."--missing both
> the quality and the nature of many of the sources, which are e-mails ABOUT
> Judyth from those attacking her--hardly good sources for an objective
> evaluation.
Martin, are emails sent from Judyth to other people good sources of
Judyth's account?
Are posts/emails from you good information?
Are posts/emails from Platzman a good source of information?
Are actual emails from Judyth to researchers a good source of information?
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
> The outlines serially entitled "Deadly Alliance" were an ongoing summary
> assembled by Howard Platzman, on which Judyth would comment. He would add
> things as he had time, or as he received them, or as he had time to go
> through the documentation she had sent us. Any description of the outlines
> as "early drafts" of her book would be incorrect.
How about 'outline' based upon Judyth's own recollection of events?
In terms of
> the book, "Deadly Alliance" was nothing. They were separate.
> Her book manuscript was completed, in its essentials, by January 1999. If
> she recalled something else later, she would add it--or if she located
> additional documentation--but the essentials were all there before she
> ever contacted us.
So, the claims that she didn't even start researching until late 1998 are
true, but the *essentials* were all in place by January- complete with a
manuscript?
That's some fast research, don't you think?
Her son and Dr. Joe Reitzes, however, saw
> her original 1998 letters to the son, from which the manuscript was drawn.
> I have literally yards thick of "Judyth's words." You were fed a fraction
> of an inch of fragments carefully selected. You were used--not that it was
> difficult.
Hehe. Right. We'll see who that most accurately fits.
You refer to "exact quotations," but only some
> were from Judyth--others were "exact quotations" from people attacking her
> and claiming she said or did this or that--or that Howard did, in one
> notorious instance. If you want context, read the book.
Yep, trying very hard to read it. If I skip the pointless stuff, I'd have
it done. However, I still have 500 pages left to reference.
> The co-authored effort, running to about 300 pages (I've read it), was
> discarded, and Judyth went back to her original manuscript.
> I've always done research to learn more about the assassination. I've
> never been doing research "for Judyth," and I certainly wasn't doing
> research for her book. Howard and I were "principal investigators" OF her
> account and whether it was accurate and supported by evidence.
Is investigating a new word that could be construed as *researching*?
The
> implication was that we were investigating FOR her book.
> On the subject of CIA employment--if the CIA does the work through another
> organization, one is NOT employed by the CIA, but by whoever is doing the
> project for them.
I understand that. It is an indirect employment. CIA funds Joe Schmoe,
Inc. Joe Schmoe, Inc. hires people to run a project for the CIA. It is an
indirect paycheck from the CIA being laundered through a legitimate
business.
We all know how that works. It is that way so that one can say, "Look at
my paycheck, it didn't come from the CIA, it came from Joe Schmoe, Inc."
However, the freaking job was created by and funded indirectly by the CIA.
Call it what you want. Judyth claims to have knowledge of this funding
through Ochsner from the CIA, right?
It's called contracting. If a builder was
> constructing a new wing at Langley, would you be claiming that they were
> "a CIA employee"?
No, I'd claim that they were working indirectly for the CIA on
non-clandestine construction operations.
Judyth wasn't building a freaking deck, Martin. Nice analogy.
>Stop weaseling these issues, John.
Um, who are you talking to?
> Context is only part of the problem--false contradictions is the main one.
> The fact that "he quotes material" doesn't mean he uses it honestly.
> As for "one has to believe her," we do in fact have more than her word.
You have documented *things* that occurred that Judyth claims to be
involved it without documentation of that.
I've scoured the source notes and there is very little to actually support
her involvement with LHO, Sherman, Ochsner, Ferrie, Ruby, etc.
You have the equivalent of *evidence* that numerous other books are based
on:
witness testimony
...and scant it is.
> We have the frames from the film, showing the women near Oswald;
Which doesn't mean jack. If you're actually going to trot that crap out as
evidence, you have problems.
Judyth, of all people, says she doesn't really know if that is her...yet
she remembers talking to those EXACT two women in the film.
Puhleeeze! As if she might've talked to them elsewhere?
we have
> a photo of Judyth wearing a dress of the exact same pattern as a woman
> whose hair and general appearance resemble Judyth closely. But I forgot
> that you are a coincidence theorist.
Yes, I am. Just like I think it was a coincidence that LHO resembled Billy
Lovelady.
It's also interesting that it's the
> only bit of all the leafletting footage that shows him smiling.
For crying out loud. That doesn't mean jack. If you really base anything
on that, you need help with this.
> Robert's job: not long ago, she ran across a receipt--on the back of it
> was a draft of the letter Robert sent to the company. She had never looked
> at the back of the receipt before. She is willing to correct errors where
> she has made them--she is very determined to recount things as accurately
> as she can.
Again, you don't find it odd that SHE AND HER HUSBAND NEVER ONCE DISCUSSED
HIS LOOKING FOR A JOB IN A NEW AREA WHERE THEY DECIDED TO START A NEW LIFE
TOGETHER????
> Regarding number 9, you are responding to several things with a comment
> that doesn't apply to all of them.
> Try to get this straight, finally, John.
Been up late, Martin? My name is not John.
She mentioned Cancun to
> indicate the AREA where they were going, as it was the name most people
> would recognize.
No, that's what she said AFTER it was made an issue...after she claimed
that she never wrote those words...and AFTER Lifton told her that he had
it on tape.
You should get your facts straight, Bill.;-)
Their destination was the Mayan ruins in Yucatan. Your
> claim that she "goes where the evidence is" is very slippery. Her account
> is based on a combination of memory and saved documentation. Her account
> is not SHAPED by later evidence.
I'm going to have to remember that...;-)
> What idiot told you that in a "clandestine operation" the norm is that
> "all is discussed"? Wow.
I didn't say that, Martin. I asked how she was told so much information
for a clandestine operation at 19yoa when she hadn't been formally brought
in by the bosses?
> Robert's job (again)--she thought he was looking for jobs in the New
> Orleans area--many years later, she found the draft of his letter, which
> showed that he was looking specically for a job on the Gulf. Robert wasn't
> exactly one to share his thoughts, as his children confirm.
Yet, she thought...for years...that his job was a setup and that he hadn't
sought it out, but needed a never before seen back of a receipt to learn
that.
S..T..R...E.....T.......C................H!
> Regarding his "tape recording," Lifton hasn't made ANYTHING "public"
> except unsupported claims.
And is that because *somebody* wouldn't give permission to make it public,
Martin?
If it doesn't prove anything, why hide it?
He said the taping was perfectly legal, but
> then wouldn't share it unless Judyth would sign a release--suggesting that
> there WAS a question about its legality.
Yes, let's pretend that nobody bothered to check whether the location of
the taping occurred in a one party or two party state.
Are we all that naive, Martin?
It took me a grand total of 30 seconds to type in 'California wire tap
laws' in Yahoo and click on the 5th link, which lists California as a duel
consent state.
http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/about-wire-tap-and-phone-recording-laws.html
I repeatedly said if it
> was legal, he should go ahead and share it.
You mean you prime investigators couldn't figure that one out?
Silence--except for the
> newsgroup pack who insisted that it was MY obligation to get Judyth to
> sign the requested release, to make the "legal" tape--what, legal?
Yes, legal. If there's nothing to hide, signing it for release would
verify Judyth's claims. It would support her. Why refuse and act like
you're pleading the fifth?
Hey, I know...let's pretend not to support anything that is illegal....
Um....
Except the foreknowledge of a couple of murders and not doing anything
about it!
Perhaps there's been a coming of faith and a whole turnaround in Judyth,
right?
> As for Cancun, you already know that it's been on the maps of Yucatan
> since 1787.
When confronted, she tried to say she never said it or wrote that. It was
all somebody else's fault. Enter Deb and her map...Harrumphhh! Cancun not
only made it on the map, but a section in the book was rededicated to it
after it was removed from the account...only then supported and re-added!
Only Harry Potter can make that nugget disappear!
Shall we document the chronology of events, Martin? Or, as you suggest
below, should we just forget it and stop bringing it up?
>I can't believe you're still pushing that nonsense.
> You seem not only to be hastening to defend the propaganda of Dave
> Reitzes, but to be doing it very ineptly.
Oh how I'd like to expand on my thoughts regarding Judyth and her ebb and
flow!
Martin Shackelford
It began appearing on maps as early as 1787.
It was the RESORT that was built in 1969.
But they weren't going for the resort--they were going to visit the
Mayan ruins, near which there was a perfectly fine hotel, the Hotel
Mayaland, since the 1930s, as well as one built in the 1950s.
She's been talking about her interest in the Mayan ruins since 1999.
The documentation is out there now--or has Andy stopped selling to you?
Martin
Martin Shackelford
a vegetarian.
If someone missing finding one newsgroup post via Google, gee, they MUST
be a poor researcher.
Does anyone really take this stuff seriously?
Martin
Martin Shackelford
really--they usually assume some pre-existing knowledge, so are often
bits out of context.
As for individual e-mails from anyone, I doubt that many e-mails would
be considered a good source of her "account." It's like having a few
pieces of a jigsaw and assuming you know the whole picture.
Martin
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>E-mails from Judyth a good source of "Judyth's account"? Not
>really--they usually assume some pre-existing knowledge, so are often
>bits out of context.
Or is it more likely, as you wrote to me in June of 2004, that "Judyth
has always tended to ramble a bit in e-mails,.." Personally, in my
experience, I found her e-mails a good source for many things ... it's
just that they usually conflicted, overlapped, contradicted one
another, etc. That in itself is valuable information.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>But Cancun DID "exist then," Barb, as you very well know.
>It began appearing on maps as early as 1787.
>It was the RESORT that was built in 1969.
>But they weren't going for the resort--they were going to visit the
>Mayan ruins, near which there was a perfectly fine hotel, the Hotel
>Mayaland, since the 1930s, as well as one built in the 1950s.
>She's been talking about her interest in the Mayan ruins since 1999.
One wonders then why she had begun "to fantacize about my hoped for
escape to Quintana Roo."
Cancun, the resort, is in Quintana Roo; the Mayan ruins at Chichen
Itza are in the state of Yucatan.
>The documentation is out there now--or has Andy stopped selling to you?
That's silly. But riddle me this ... if the publisher can't continue
to sell/print the book because of some legal snafu, then how can Any
still be selling the book?
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
misrepresentation proves off the mark. The outlines were assembled and
expanded over time as e-mails and documentation were added. They would
best be described as Howard's understanding of what he knew so far at any
given time. It would be highly misleading to simply attribute it to
Judyth, as has often been done here in a simple-minded way.
You and McAdams "translate" about as well as modern Greek speakers trying
to translate ancient Aramaic. "The claims that she didn't start
researching until 1998"? Who said anything about RESEARCHING. In 1998, she
set down her recollections in a series of letters to her son, with the
idea of letting him decide whether to make them public after her death.
Then she showed them to one of her profs, who suggested showing them to
another of her profs who had an interest in Oswald--and that prof
suggested that she put the letters into manuscript form. Where in this do
you see ANY reference to "research," Chad?
When I mentioned "exact quotations," it was your reference to McAdams'
webpage that I was commenting about, not Judyth's book. Try to read for
comprehension.
No, "investigating" her account and documentation is NOT the same as
"researching" for her book. You seem to be trying much too hard to
misunderstand everything, Chad. Why is that?
I am wondering how much documentation you expected there to be of a
clandestine project and a clandestine love affair. It was fortunate that
there were still some witnesses alive who remembered parts of it. Anna
knew about the affair, and to some degree that Judyth was doing something
with David Ferrie. McCullough and others saw Lee and Judyth together on
various occasions. A Ferrie neighbor saw someone fitting Judyth's
description going in and out of Ferrie's apartment that summer. According
to Howard Liebengood, who went through a lot of CIA documents in the
mid-70s for the Church Committee, Judyth knew about some things going on
in 1963 that aren't in the public record.
Do I need to remind you that Oswald and Lovelady weren't dressed alike on
November 22? I was talking about the dress pattern, Chad. I notice that
you skipped over that part. I'm not basing ANYHING on SINGLE PIECES of
information. I'm looking at CONSISTENT PATTERNS of information.
If YOU find it odd that she and Robert didn't discuss certain things, you
haven't paid much attention to the book's detailing of their relationship.
I notice you ignore everything but the old attack bit about Lifton not
being "given permission" to release the tape. He said the tape was
perfectly legal--so he shouldn't need anyone's permission to release it.
I wasn't the one claiming the tape was perfectly legal--it was Lifton.
Talk to him about it. What you seem to be suggesting is that Lifton wasn't
telling the truth about the tape being legal. I referred very early to his
"illegal taping" of the call. As he was misrepresenting the length of the
call (something he finally admitted), we had no way of knowing it he would
release the complete call or an edited version. Judyth described the call
immediately after it happened--much later, Lifton offered a much different
version. The burden of proof isn't on Judyth.
A chronology of the "Cancun" issue as it appeared on the newsgroup would
be worthless--because the earliest discussions of their plans wouldn't be
included--written long before the issue came up on the newsgroup.
Chronological ignorance doesn't enhance anyone's understanding.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
theorize without having all the facts. He also pointed out that "facts
are nothing without their nuance."
Martin
Martin Shackelford
involved, Barb. Not too difficult to understand.
I won't discuss legal matters here.
Martin
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>She had never been there, and didn't have a good grasp of the distances
>involved, Barb. Not too difficult to understand.
It's total nonsense relative to the comment I made!
Distance from where .... to where? From a then nonexistent resort town
in a then nonexistent state to where?
Oy. Don't try to explain this one anymore, Martin, it's been toast for
years.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Well, Sherlock, the original article always said it was a mistake to
>theorize without having all the facts. He also pointed out that "facts
>are nothing without their nuance."
>
>Martin
"He" who? What article?
Oh, look, there's Alice over there in the corner, where is she going,
I think I'll follow here, oops, maybe I already did, that could
explain it all...
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
> Once again, your attempt to re-frame the facts by your own
> misrepresentation proves off the mark. The outlines were assembled and
> expanded over time as e-mails and documentation were added. They would
> best be described as Howard's understanding of what he knew so far at any
> given time. It would be highly misleading to simply attribute it to
> Judyth, as has often been done here in a simple-minded way.
Well, Martin, she does write it as though SHE remembered it, not as it was
created
by emails and other evidence.
>
> You and McAdams "translate" about as well as modern Greek speakers trying
> to translate ancient Aramaic. "The claims that she didn't start
> researching until 1998"? Who said anything about RESEARCHING. In 1998, she
> set down her recollections in a series of letters to her son, with the
> idea of letting him decide whether to make them public after her death.
> Then she showed them to one of her profs, who suggested showing them to
> another of her profs who had an interest in Oswald--and that prof
> suggested that she put the letters into manuscript form. Where in this do
> you see ANY reference to "research," Chad?
You are the one that said that she didn't start researching until late 1998.
You. Your own
words. Remember?
>
> When I mentioned "exact quotations," it was your reference to McAdams'
> webpage that I was commenting about, not Judyth's book. Try to read for
> comprehension.
>
> No, "investigating" her account and documentation is NOT the same as
> "researching" for her book. You seem to be trying much too hard to
> misunderstand everything, Chad. Why is that?
Your investigating didn't lead to new information that was included in the
book?
Jesus, she has source notes up the wazoo from all of this research.
>
> I am wondering how much documentation you expected there to be of a
> clandestine project and a clandestine love affair. It was fortunate that
> there were still some witnesses alive who remembered parts of it. Anna
> knew about the affair, and to some degree that Judyth was doing something
> with David Ferrie. McCullough and others saw Lee and Judyth together on
> various occasions. A Ferrie neighbor saw someone fitting Judyth's
> description going in and out of Ferrie's apartment that summer. According
> to Howard Liebengood, who went through a lot of CIA documents in the
> mid-70s for the Church Committee, Judyth knew about some things going on
> in 1963 that aren't in the public record.
Such as? Care to elaborate, or would you just prefer to be obscure?
>
> Do I need to remind you that Oswald and Lovelady weren't dressed alike on
> November 22?
No kidding.
I was talking about the dress pattern, Chad. I notice that
> you skipped over that part. I'm not basing ANYHING on SINGLE PIECES of
> information. I'm looking at CONSISTENT PATTERNS of information.
Good, glad to know it was the exact same dress.
>
> If YOU find it odd that she and Robert didn't discuss certain things, you
> haven't paid much attention to the book's detailing of their relationship.
Hearsay. Once again, Judyth says so.
>
> I notice you ignore everything but the old attack bit about Lifton not
> being "given permission" to release the tape. He said the tape was
> perfectly legal--so he shouldn't need anyone's permission to release it.
> I wasn't the one claiming the tape was perfectly legal--it was Lifton.
> Talk to him about it. What you seem to be suggesting is that Lifton wasn't
> telling the truth about the tape being legal.
Duh.
I referred very early to his
> "illegal taping" of the call. As he was misrepresenting the length of the
> call (something he finally admitted), we had no way of knowing it he would
> release the complete call or an edited version. Judyth described the call
> immediately after it happened--much later, Lifton offered a much different
> version. The burden of proof isn't on Judyth.
YEah, I'm sure Lifton edited it. Why? Judyth said so and described the
call...
>
> A chronology of the "Cancun" issue as it appeared on the newsgroup would
> be worthless--because the earliest discussions of their plans wouldn't be
> included--written long before the issue came up on the newsgroup.
> Chronological ignorance doesn't enhance anyone's understanding.
YEah, I'm sure it'd address her recanting of it...then the replacing of
it...
Ebb and flow, Martin.
Nice legacy.
Chad
Martin Shackelford
I was talking about the outlines--which Howard wrote--and you blithely
begin with "she does write it"--she DIDN'T write it. Presumably, you
jumped to talking about the book, while omitting the transition.
And you misrepresent what I said about 1998. I said nothing about
research in connection with that year--there wasn't any. She wrote
letters to her son; at her prof's urging, she turned them into a
manuscript--no research involved--any clearer?
Later in the process, when I ran across supporting documentation, I
passed it on to her, but this had nothing to do with her account--just
with documentation supporting what was already written.
Howard Liebengood wasn't in a position to reveal what he found in the
classified CIA documents, which are still unreleased, so I can hardly
share their contents with you. It has nothing to do with being "obscure."
You and your allies seem wedded to the chant "Judyth says so," but
Judyth is hardly the only source on Robert--her sister, her children,
his own letters, are all sources on Robert--and consistent with Judyth's
characterizations.
You are playing games about the Lifton phone call as well. Judyth
described the Lifton call to us immediately after it happened, when the
details were fresh in her mind. Lifton waited many months, and then came
out with a different version of the call--including (as he later
admitted) misrepresenting its length.