Judyth: From the Beginning, Part 17
Dave Reitzes
Subject: The Finger
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 10:24:06 GMT
From: Howard Platman <ho...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
John:
I promised myself not to get entangled in an unproductive newsgroup
rank-out session. But you only prove my point about this not being the
place.
> Sorry, Howard, but a cancer research prodigy getting a job with the
> CIA right out of high school just doesn't cut it. It's absurd. You
> can't supply a "context" that allows that to make any sense.
-- How about several years of training at various universities in
between? Matt unfortunately got that part wrong and you are all too
ready to pounce. Of course, it's absurd. You've proved my point.
> And Lee Oswald going to Mexico City to get into Cuba so he could give
> Castro cancer in the service of the CIA doesn't make any sense either.
> Indeed, *none* of the Haslam "cancer research" stuff makes any sense.
> It's bogus from beginning to end. "Context" doesn't help it.
-- Unsupported assertions.
> >All of those who know Judyth have made our own choices re the newsgroup.
There
> >is no one "in control," as John McAdams has charged (indeed, sometimes I
wish
> >he were more nearly correct than he is).
Howard, when her story first appeared, it was floated by a publicist
> who I understand has now been fired. It supposedly had a bunch of
> "inaccuracies" in it. Which raises the questions of how Judyth hired
such a publicist to begin with. Then there was a version of her story
with "encrustations." That was Martin's term. Who was responsible for
getting the "encrustations" out of the story? You can see why some of
us fear that her story is being "sanitized," can't you? You know:
absurd elements removed so that what remains will seem plausible?
-- I assure you, when it comes out, John it will not seem plausible.
Certainly not to you. Happy? When I first encountered Judyth, she
told me "it's complicated, but it's logical." It took months to sort
out. I could be insulted by your charge that I have "sanitized" it.
> I must admit, however, that if it's being "sanitized," the people
> doing it aren't doing a good job. It still has a ton of absurdities!
-- That's life.
Judyth wrote once, out
> >of indignation that David Lifton had broken a confidence. She has had
to fight
> >the urge to respond publicly to the many unkind and untrue things that have
> >been said about her and her story on this newsgroup, but she has many
demands
> >on her (including demands that are purely personal in nature), so she has
> >refrained from defending herself, which she is quite capable of doing, I
assure
> >you.
>
> But she did respond at least once. Didn't I see a message from her?
In such a hurry to debunk, you seem to have skipped over what I just
wrote: "Judyth wrote once..." (see just above)
> >I have no choice but to take these issues quite seriously.
>
> When will the "legal issues" be taken care of, and the story be told?
>
As soon as possible, if I had made way. But excuse me if I choose not to
commit suicide to suit your curiosity. As I say, Martin should never have
whetted your apetite. We're not of like minds on the subject of leaking.
> And just what kind of "legal issues" would keep you and Judyth from
> talking?
-- The kind that can bankrupt you. Thanks for the sympathy.
> If you told the story publicly, and it stood up to scrutiny, that
> would make a book contract, a spot on "60 Minutes," etc. easy.
-- Who notices what does and does not "stand up to scrutiny" in the
newsgroups? This is a small pond, John.
Somehow, Martin is supposed to think himself foolish for taking
> >what turns out to be a true report as evidence that she might actually have
> >known the man.
>
> Yes, Martin *was* foolish to think she had some kind of "inside
> knowledge" of Ruby. It turns out the "knowledge" she had was of
> something printed in the WCR, in Wills and Demaris' JACK RUBY, and
> probably a bunch of other places.
-- I assume you're claiming you knew about it. No matter. She knows
other things that will become the subject of similar "guess-the- source"
games.
> >Why shouldn't she be happy that, finally, someone believes her? Must
there be
> >something sinister in her happiness? She is not venomous; is that a crime?
>
> It's a successful con job.
Nonresponsive. And venomous.
> >She said that Martin told her either it wasn't so, or he had never heard of
> >that before. Then, it turned out she was right. And when, in the course
of his
> >running debate with Judyth, he found her to be right, why her credibility
> >increased dramatically.
>
> BUT IT SHOULDN'T HAVE!
-- Do you honestly think Ruby's finger played anything approaching an
important role in establishing her credibility? I don't even recall
writing a word about it until now. It just came up recently and Lifton
didn't seem to know where it came from.
> Do you and Martin even *yet* get the point? Judyth had picked up some
> little fact that you didn't happen to know about -- but which was
> widely available to anybody who read a few books.
-- Like Lifton and Martin, pikers. There's a whole lot more to the story
than you know. The point is you want to debate a story that hasn't been
told. Have you no better way to occupy yourself?
> And instead of asking "where *did* she get that?" you jumped to the
> conclusion that she must have known Ruby.
-- You said "jumped," not me.
> > Has it really never occured to you guys that Judyth has read some
> books on the assassination?
-- No, John, never. In fact, it only occurred to us when you pointed
out the possibility. Thanks, we really needed that.
> > If you were asked to prove you knew someone closely, you would mention an
> >intimate detail, something few others know -- but something that could be
> >verified.
>
> AND SOMETHING THAT HADN'T BEEN PUBLISHED IN NUMEROUS BOOKS!
-- Don't worry, John. You'll get plenty of that. And then you'll
complain there isn't enough corroboration in the established record.
-- BTW, did you ever call her to find out just how "addle-headed" she
is?
Mr. Lifton has committed the classic logical fallacy known
> >as circular reasoning. He wants to prove that Ms. Baker is a fraud and
Martin
> >her fool, so he assumes what he is trying to prove. How does he do
this? By
> >assuming that Ms. Baker found out this "non-essential information" in some
> >distant corner of the internet or an unpublished manuscript,
>
> You mean the "unpublished" WARREN COMMISSION REPORT or the
> "unpublished" book JACK RUBY?
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ruby4.htm
-- John, you're beginning to sound like she claims she discovered the
Zapruder film. The point of this is not to debate Ruby's finger, but to
show that Lifton has engaged in circular reasoning if he thinks he's
proven her a fraud. Just because it's been published, now apparently in so
many places it boggles the mind that Lifton couldn't guess the source,
doesn't change the fact that he's proved nothing, merely restated his
bias. Which is all you have done.
-- This entire debate is ridiculous. You say something is ludicrous.
Martin says you don't know the context. You say you don't need context.
He insists you do. Lifton insists everyone else but him is an idiot.
Don't you get the point?
> That's what comes from spending all your life immersed in conspiracy
> literature, Howard. The telling little things about people like Ruby
> are unfamiliar to you.
-- Now the finger is a "telling little thing." I read Demaris a long
time ago. I suppose Lifton and Martin did, too. Are you suggesting
this is MUST reading, whereas any pro-conspiracy book is not? Silly.
> No, David is simply pointing out how Martin could be conned.
-- David is pointing out what idiots we are. You, to give you the benefit
of the doubt, are pointing out how we could be conned. I am pointing out
how you could be so alert to being conned that you have become completely
closed-minded.
> >Exactly when did knowing the truth from direct experience drop out of the
> >equation?
> When somebody tells a bunch of wacky tales that lack credibility.
> When you find that, you start suspecting a con job.
-- Matt rattled off a few sentences. Other than that, no one's told a
bunch of tales.
> >Judyth is playing a game with Martin. But in "games" like this, one
would have
> >to find the real source of this information in order to expose someone as a
> >fraud. Here, however, we have Mr. Lifton accepting the truth of the claim.
> >Very canny of him. If he did not, Martin might actually direct him to
it and
> >he would have to deal with why his 30 years of research failed to
unearth this
> >information. So he skips over the little matter of whether or not she is
> >telling the truth. It is "non-essential," he says. Sure it is --
unless the
> >object is to prove you knew someone or at least got a good, close-up
look at
> >them.
>
> I'm not following you. David remembered hearing it somewhere, and
> various e-mail correspondents of mine quickly produced references.
-- Must have said that in a post I missed. The point is simply that it
takes some digging to find. To then infer digging from the fact that
someone knows it is circular reasoning. I apparently read it, too, if
it's in Demaris. That neither proves she did or didn't. IF she's for real,
then she would have no way of knowing whether this was "widely known" or
not (which, of course, it isn't, not by most participants in this
newsgroup). This would explain her happiness. Unfortunately, it's out
there, so no happiness. It's not as if everything rides on this. The
point, once again, is that you have barely scratched the surface and the
rapidity with which you declare her a fraud is unseemly. Only one thing
is proved in all this hubbub over Ruby's finger: you and Lifton are
biased.
> >Jack Ruby's finger afforded her that leverage.
> >
> >-- How novel a concept! The truth as "leverage."
>
> No, using published information to claim personal knowledge as
> "leverage."
-- Prove it.
> You don't get it, Howard, you just flat don't get it.
-- John, I would have to be a moron not to get the point you're making.
What I don't get is why you think Martin and I are so addle- brained as to
not understand "how one might be conned." I could be insulted.
> >In effect, she sent Martin on a scavenger hunt, and he--like a dutiful
> >golden retriever--"fetched" the incriminating evidence. (Shades of the TV
> >ad, where the voice says, "Lycos - - - FETCH!!") What is amazing to me
is that
> >Judyth's m.o. is so blatantly transparent. (It became obvious to me,
during
> >our conversation, that Judyth was possessed of all sorts of factoids,
and it
> >became a contest of sorts, when I spoke with her, to figure out which
web site
> >or book each came from.)
> >
> >-- If Mr. Lifton's failure to challenge her report about Ruby's finger
is any
> >indication, then "factoid" is defined as "anything Mr. Lifton doesn't
know."
>
> Factoid has two different meanings. It can mean "little fact" (USA
> TODAY used to print "factoids"), or it can mean "bogus so-called fact"
> (the way I use it).
>
> >So Judyth is possessed of all sorts of knowledge Mr. Lifton doesn't
have, and
> >yet, in his one conversation with her, and in all this after- conversation
> >blather, he shows no intellectual curiosity whatsoever. Might not some of
> >these things he does not know be "essential'?
>
> I still don't follow you.
-- HE ASSUMES SHE HAS NOTHING TO SAY OF ANY VALUE BECAUSE HER CONSPIRACY
IS NOT HIS CONSPIRACY. IT IS A BATTLE OF AUTHORS TO HIM. THAT IS
PRECISELY WHAT SHE FOUND OFFENSIVE IN HER ONLY CONVERSATION WITH HIM. HE
CARED ABOUT WHEN HER BOOK WAS COMING OUT. TO THE POINTS IN HER STORY HE
OBJECTED TO, HE ASKED NO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS, ONLY JOTTED DOWN AMMUNITION
FOR LATER WARFARE AND REFUSED SEVERAL TIMES TO ITEMIZE HIS "FATAL FLAWS."
COULD WE THEN "SANITIZE" HER STORY USING HIS PRECIOUS INSIGHTS? HE'D BE
AROUND WITH PROOF WE'D DONE SO. I SPECIFICALLY ASKED HIM TO PUT PERSONAL
MATTERS ASIDE AND APPEALED TO HIM, IN THE NAME OF A COMMON CAUSE, A COMMON
INTEREST IN THE TRUTH, TO SHARE HIS THOUGHTS. HE CHOSE NOT TO. SO MUCH FOR
FREE AND UNFETTERED DEBATE AMONG A COMMUNITY OF PROFESSIONALS. HEY, JOHN,
WHY AREN'T YOU DEMANDING THAT HE RELEASE HIS BOOK NOW? HE'S CERTAINLY
BEEN AT IT A WHILE. NO TIME LIKE THE PRESENT, RIGHT?
> This is the way it works, Howard: if a witness tells a little
> "detail" like this, and one finds that it's not available to the
> reading public, one might conclude that it's from personal knowledge.
>
> But if it *is* easily available to somebody who reads a few books on
> the assassination, that doesn't *prove* that it comes from reading.
> But it does destroy the presumption that a "witness" had "personal
> knowledge" of something.
-- Consider the presumption destroyed. Now what would you like to
hear?
> So either you find other evidence, or you *have* no evidence.
-- Other evidence for her story? Are you kidding? Do you think we've
labored all this time over the finger?
> >Note that Mr. Lifton doesn't tell us how he scored in this "game" he
believes
> >Judyth was playing with him.
> >
> >But, of course, it is a losing proposition for Judyth: if she knows
something
> >he knows, it's meaningless because it's easily available; and if she knows
> >something he doesn't know, it's meaningless because she researched it.
Reread the above. That's the game you're playing. Silly.
> >This is just the sort of nonsense that makes interesting threads go
threadbare.
> >It is a shame that the worst offender is also its most famous -- or
should I
> >say its most notorious?
> >
> >What a disgrace.
>
> Howard, I sort of feel sorry for you. I know you are honest, and mean
> well, and are in a bad spot.
-- Spare me your condescension, John.
> But you really asked for it. You and Martin and Joe have let yourself
> be conned. Her story has "bogus" and "con" and "fraud" written all
> over it.
-- All over what. You haven't seen IT. Nobody should even be talking
about IT, if I had my way. I'm with you, John, ALL OR NOTHING AT ALL. I
don't enjoy disagreeing with my friend, Martin, but that's where I stand.
But you refuse to see that. So the consequence is that all
> of you twist in the wind.
>
> Finally, a piece of advice: if you can't come out with the whole
> story, *leak* it. Or let somebody else leak it -- with a wink and a
> nudge -- you know. Get it all out on the table, the sooner the
> better.
-- It can't be "leaked." It must be told in full. I am weary and would
like nothing better than to have it all out on that table, but it can't
happen yet. It just can't. If you can't accept that, I'll just have to
live with whatever level of empathy you are capable of.
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------
Subject: Judyth, Phillips and Bishop, and Reilly
From: David Lifton DLi...@compuserve.com
Date: 11/6/00 4:27 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <200011061627_...@compuserve.com>
On the question of whether Lee every met with David Atlee Phillips and
whether Lee knew Phillips by his real name; and the question of whether
other employees at Reily knew Phillips by either or both names ("Bishop"
or Phillips), here's what Judyth told me on March 4, 2000:
QUOTE ON:
What I simply want to do. . I want you to know that [Oswald] is an
innocent man; this is a man who had a chance to get out of this thing, and
he stuck it out. OK? He stuck it out. Of course, he wanted to get out
alive, and all that, but that is not the point, but he, [starts to get
upset] he knew that; [pause, starts to cry] he knew, we knew things were
really bad when Phillips didn't show up.
He told me, [recovers; now sounds cheerful] listen -I didn't know what
David Atlee Phillips name was until our last phone conversation, or maybe
a couple before that. I can't remember. But he told me, to *never* forget
his name. He told me, "never forget his name."
DSL: How did he know his name, by the way?
Judyth: Oh, he met him. But, listen, I'd overheard, we'd overheard, I'd
overheard his name before, over at Reily's. They talked about a guy named
Bishop, and [someone] said, 'That's Phillips", and so I had an idea who
that was.
UNQUOTE
* ** * *
Which inspires the following dialogue over at Reily, perhaps at the retail
counter where they do testing of coffee samples:
REILY EMPLOYEE: Well, what'll it be this morning, Mr. Bishop?
PHILLIPS: Phillips is the name.
EMPLOYEE: Yeah, that's what I'd heard. . . but what'll it be?
PHILLIPS: Oh, I'll take Brazillian roast this morning.
EMPOLOYEE: Didn't I serve you Hazelnut the other day? Why is it that some
days you like the Brazilian roast, on other days, the Hazelnut?
PHILLIPS: Well, when I'm feeling like "Phillips", I tend to like the
Brazilian; and when I'm in my Bishop personna, I tend to like Hazelnut.
Its just a carry-over from my training period at The Farm.
EMPLOYEE: I see. . .
PHILLIPS: Actually, in light of the work I'm doing, I would like to see
you guys come up with a another flavor.
EMPLOYEE: And what might that be?
PHILLIPS: Mexico City Macabre.
EMPLOYEE: By the way, how are the mice doing?
PHILLIPS: Which mice?
EMPLOYEE: Well, I understand you guys have 4,000 mice in that lab. How do
you manage that?
PHILLIPS: Well, first of all, its none of your business. But second,
they're not there all at the same time. I mean, it depends upon which
mouse you are talking about.
EMPLOYEEE: Oh yes, I see. Well, sorry I asked. See you tomorrow, Mr.
Phillips, er Bishop.
FADE TO BLACK
QUESTIONS FOR MARTIN SHACKELFORD:
1) Did Judyth tell you, as she did me, that she knew Phillips by his real
name, *and* by his alias?
2) Did she tell you that Lee Oswald knew Phillips by his real name, *and*
his alias??
3) If Phillips was involved in a covert operation that involved LHO, do
you think he'd tell him BOTH his alias and his real name?
4) IF Phillips was involved in a covert operation, do you think he'd have
anything whatsoever to do with employees at Reily Coffee-again for any
reason; but, just for the sake of argument, let's say he did.
Do you believe that he'd be using both his real name AND his alias? If so,
this has got to be one of the most insecure operations in intelligence
history: not only does the low level agent, supposedly working directly
under the CIA' Chief of the Western Hemisphere Division know BOTH his
names, but so does his girlfriend! And, in additon, so do numerous others
at the coffee company where the low-level fellow is employed, oiling the
machinery!
5) Martin - - do you realize how ridiculous all these claims
are-individually, and collectively?
Wake up Martin Shackelford. There is a near-zero chance that any of this
has any relationship whatsoever to reality.
DSL
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------
Subject: Re: Judyth, Phillips and Bishop, and Reilly
From: mshack msh...@concentric.net
Date: 11/6/00 9:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <3A056E...@concentric.net>
If David Lifton wasn't so determined to prove Judyth a fraud, he might
take a more careful approach to the evidence he uses (what little he
uses). But he's too busy trying to ridicule her, and anyone who believes
her account. No way to do research, David. Incidentally, the latest post
sounds an awful lot like a transcript of a tape recording--did he tape
record the call? And was that legal? Did he tell her that he was recording
the call? If it wasn't a recording, it was VERY good shorthand. As for the
Phillips matter, David screws it up once again. This is no longer a
surprise. It's what happens when no followup questions are asked, or the
few that are asked are based on false assumptions. The only one quoted
here is "How did he know his name, by the way."
When "Phillips didn't show up" (Mexico City), Oswald still knew him (for
sure) only as "Bishop." Reily owners (and Judyth worked for an executive
there) were actively involved in INCA and the anti-Castro movement. We
know from Gordon Novel's deposition (posted on this newsgroup) that
Phillips was using his real name in meetings with some anti-Castro people
in New Orleans. Why would it be so surprising that someone where Judyth
worked (in the executive offices) would know that Bishop was a name
Phillips used?
At no point has anyone suggested that Phillips told Oswald his alias
AND his real name. This is pure assumption on Lifton's part, and another
wrong guess (how long is the list now, David?).
At no point has anyone suggested that Phillips had anything to do with
"employees at the Reily Coffee Co."--it was the owners and some
upper-level executives who were involved with the anti-Castro movement.
This matter has been cited by Lifton as the "red flag" that proves Judyth
is a fraud. It does no such thing. He makes ignorant assumptions, draws
incorrect conclusions from them, and gets nowhere. In truth, "There is a
near-zero chance that any of [Lifton's assumptions] has any relationship
whatsoever to reality." Stumble on, David.
Martin
--
Martin Shackelford
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by
those
who have not got it." ---George Bernard Shaw
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------
Subject: Re: Judyth, Phillips and Bishop, and Reilly
From: John McAdams john.m...@marquette.edu
Date: 11/6/00 10:05 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <3A0771...@marquette.edu>
mshack wrote:
>
> If David Lifton wasn't so determined to prove Judyth a fraud, he might
> take a more careful approach to the evidence he uses (what little he
> uses). But he's too busy trying to ridicule her, and anyone who believes
> her account. No way to do research, David.
> Incidentally, the latest post sounds an awful lot like a transcript of a
> tape recording--did he tape record the call? And was that legal? Did he
> tell her that he was recording the call? If it wasn't a recording, it
> was VERY good shorthand.
> As for the Phillips matter, David screws it up once again. This is no
> longer a surprise. It's what happens when no followup questions are
> asked, or the few that are asked are based on false assumptions. The
> only one quoted here is "How did he know his name, by the way."
>
> When "Phillips didn't show up" (Mexico City), Oswald still knew him (for
> sure) only as "Bishop." Reily owners (and Judyth worked for an executive
> there) were actively involved in INCA and the anti-Castro movement.
And were doing cancer research??!!
> We
^^
> know from Gordon Novel's deposition (posted on this newsgroup) that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Phillips was using his real name in meetings with some anti-Castro
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> people in New Orleans.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<groan>
Martin, you're just not getting this. You're not following at all.
Novel was a crackpot. Anything he said is grossly unreliable as
evidence.
You also need to understand that one crackpot witness will typically
"corroborate" another crackpot witness.
For example, Jean Hill mentions the "changed parade route" through
Dealey Plaza.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jhill.htm
And interestingly, so does James Files:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/files.htm
And there is *more* corroboration! Madeline Brown mentions this too!
You understand what's wrong with this, right? All three are repeating the
same silly conspiracy factoid. No telling where they got it. It's been
all over the place, and they could have each gotten it from any of dozens
of conspiracy books, or conspiracy "researchers."
But it's no kind of corroboration.
And now you've found a document from Gordon Novel that "corroborates"
something that Judyth said.
Do you really believe it plausible that David Atlee Phillips would be
engaged in some deep plot in New Orleans using his own name?
And could he have *been* in New Orleans at all?
BTW, Martin, you'll be pleased to know that James Files corroborates
Phillips involvement :-).
> Why would it be so surprising that someone where
> Judyth worked (in the executive offices) would know that Bishop was a
> name Phillips used?
Yes, and especially given that there is no evidence that Phillips ever
used the name!
The HSCA certainly found none:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bishop.txt
> At no point has anyone suggested that Phillips told Oswald his alias
> AND his real name. This is pure assumption on Lifton's part, and another
> wrong guess (how long is the list now, David?).
> At no point has anyone suggested that Phillips had anything to do
> with "employees at the Reily Coffee Co."--it was the owners and some
> upper-level executives who were involved with the anti-Castro movement.
>
> This matter has been cited by Lifton as the "red flag" that proves
> Judyth is a fraud. It does no such thing. He makes ignorant assumptions,
> draws incorrect conclusions from them, and gets nowhere. In truth,
> "There is a near-zero chance that any of [Lifton's assumptions] has any
> relationship whatsoever to reality." Stumble on, David.
>
The more information that comes out, the more implausible this whole
tale looks.
.John
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------
Subj: for your information--personal and private
Date: 11/6/00 11:46:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: Dreitzes
Dear Dave:
We have tried to contact Kurtz. He would not respond. I found that
disturbing. He is a professor who may feel sensitive to all of this,
but I remember seeing him when he was a student--at least I thought
that "KURT" as i remember him was "Kurtz" and i just forgot how it was
really pronounced after all these years.
I was in the poor excuse for a library out at the brand new
university there when everything was military world war II temporary
buildings and quonset huts and stuff, and blazing sun outside.
We went in there and got out of the sun, i had to wait while Lee
started an argument (more than a debate) about civil rights, with
several students, smoking out 'radicals" for Banister. I am almost
positive Kurtz was one of those students.
This was the same day Marcello came by out there, on the brand new
grassy area and new sidewalk area there, with mafia, who were visiting
from Chicago, in a black limo (usually Marcello didn;t go that fancy,
at least, not that summer). He had a woman in the car with them give
Lee and me each a martini -- from the limo. We threw the drinks out
but kept the little tray and the two glasses.
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------
Subject: Re: Judyth, Phillips and Bishop, and Reilly
From: mshack msh...@concentric.net
Date: 11/7/00 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <3A078C...@concentric.net>
John, I've said before there was NO cancer research going on at Reily. Why
do you repeat this utter nonsense? The Novel desposition isn't something I
"found." That portion of it was posted here on the newsgroup. Whether
Novel was reliable on ALL things, he certainly had knowledge of some
things to which he could testify. You have a tendency to throw the baby
out with the bathwater, John. Very poor scholarship. I never said Phillips
used his own name with Oswald. That particular factoid derives from
Lifton--and it's also total nonsense. You also have a strange sense of
logic--if James Files says Phillips was involved, and Files is a fraud,
then Phillips wasn't involved. That is not a sound logical progression.
Files could be a fraud, and Phillips still be involved. Phillips and
Bishop may or may not be the same person. Judyth doesn't claim certainty
about this. She is open to the possibility that Oswald's handler "Bishop"
was someone other than Phillips. But Lifton didn't question her far enough
to learn that. And you continue to be too busy jumping to conclusions to
get to that point, too.
Martin
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------
Subject: Re: Judyth, Phillips and Bishop, and Reilly
From: John McAdams john.m...@marquette.edu
Date: 11/7/00 12:39 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <3A0795...@marquette.edu>
mshack wrote:
>
> John, I've said before there was NO cancer research going on at Reily.
> Why do you repeat this utter nonsense?
OK, thanks for the correction. The sinister right-wing management at
Reily had nothing to do with the "cancer research." It was done at a
house near Ferrie's apartment.
How many thousand mice were processed per month? I think you posted the
figure.
> The Novel desposition isn't something I "found." That portion of it was
> posted here on the newsgroup. Whether Novel was reliable on ALL things,
> he certainly had knowledge of some things to which he could testify. You
> have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater, John. Very
> poor scholarship.
You *still* don't get it.
You find some witness who makes a bunch of crackpot statements. But the
witness also makes a bunch of *other* statements that you don't *know* to
be untrue. So you say "he certainly had knowledge of some things to which
he could testify."
Martin, once the witness is established as a crackpot, his testimony has
no value. It *might* be true, but it also might be lies. It's just not
any *evidence* at all, even though it may happen to be true.
> I never said Phillips used his own name with Oswald. That particular
> factoid derives from Lifton--and it's also total nonsense.
> You also have a strange sense of logic--if James Files says Phillips was
> involved, and Files is a fraud, then Phillips wasn't involved. That is
> not a sound logical progression. Files could be a fraud, and Phillips
> still be involved.
You failed to understand my point. I really think you *need* to
understand my point.
There is a general tendency of crackpot witnesses to "corroborate" each
other. They do this not because they have real knowledge of the
assassination, but because they are all drawing on the same lode of
assassination lore.
That's the point of the Paul Hoch Ratio Test. If a "witness" is really
drawing on assassination lore, the same names that are such a huge part of
the lore will keep popping up in their accounts.
> Phillips and Bishop may or may not be the same person. Judyth doesn't
> claim certainty about this. She is open to the possibility that Oswald's
> handler "Bishop" was someone other than Phillips.
I'm sure she's "open" to a lot of "possibilities" once she catches on
that a particular aspect of her tale isn't flying.
.John
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------
Subj: long email, thanks for reading
Date: 11/7/00 11:03:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], Dreitzes
[...]
I stayed away from all of this for so long, so to me, these arguments
are amazing and saddening. All the manipulations, apparently on both
sides. Now that i can see how David Lifton can take what I told him
and twist it--he's a CT person, right?--- and how Jerry (who is LN,
right?) twists the CT stuff, it seems that empotions play the biggest
role, and as long as they do, there will be built these two casltes in
the sky defending their own theories.
Both these men would have been irritated by the real Lee Oswald. Lee
told me how to "fade away" and not even be noticed in a crowd. One to
one, he was consistently intense. So am I. despite the way Mr. Lifton
has depicted me as cryoing one moment and being 'cheerful' the next,
the conversation that day came hard upon my writing abpout Lee's last
telephone call-- a task I put off for months that everyone had asked
to be chronicled.
I wish to say that whenthe book is read page by page, everything
becomes clear. All the inter-workings and the details.
To give you an example, it was lee who overheard the "Phillips" name
dropped after the "Bishop" name was dropped, but even then, we did not
think they were the same man. Why? because the conversation lee
overheard was speculation--it was brought up, not pinned down, and
only was indeed a passing remark.
For instance, Lee mentioned a "Mr. B." When we heard the name
"Bishop" we wondered if this was the "Mr. B' who had been mentioned by
Dave ferrie and by Carlos Quiroga and some other Cubans such as Sergio
A. I came to the conclusion all these years later that "Mr. B" was
not necessarily "Bishop" as we thought (a name that had come to be
spoken through the Cuban grapevine) but was possibly Frank bender.
We have been trying to find out what happened to Bender. A liason
between "Bishop" and some Miami Cubans was a man named Arthur Young,
AKA Thomas Kelly. he had tattoos on his hands and I recently was able
to hunt down his relatives. Like so many of us, he hid--in his case,
on a Louisiana Indian reservation where his wife and son had been sent
several years earlier. I think I have that right. I have a network
of people who were involved, including doctors. It is not a tale I
tell of absurdities and foolishness, unless you get only bits and
pieces.
That's why it is important that the book gets out. Until I can fight
Mr. Cox, that cannot happen.
Meanwhile, imagine, if you will, if you werer married, and you told
your wife that you were going to do something a little dangerous. You
were going to be in a Ku Klux Klan march in downtown new york because
it was your political beliefs. Then off you went. Your wife does not
hear from you the whole night--nor the next day until the early
afternoon.
You go hoime and find thast she never even called your relatives who
live a few blocks away to see if you were okay. in fact, she had the
phone number. She didn;t call the police to see if you had been
arrested. In fact, she did nothing.
This is what marina did to Lee. The police were VERY anti-
communist, VERY anti-castro, and we were worried that he could get
hurt. One reason why a staged incident (and i have some convincing
material to show that it was staged in my possession)---why a staged
incident was safer, in that the requisite publicity could get
accomplished by people who really wouldn;t hurt him.
But marina did not call anybody to see if Lee was okay. She knew
there was danger--he had explained that he would be very careful, and
he expected to be home later that night--- but when he did not come
home that night, she never went to the landlady to ask her to call his
aunt and uncle, or to call the police, to see if lee was okay. There
was a real risk he would get beat up by the police after he was
arrested. he discussed this possibility. lee was willing to take the
risk.
Now, Marina did not call. She didn't show anything like concern.
Want to know why she wasn't upset when he didn;t come home--even
if we say he never told her a thing? (though he did tell her he would
not be home until late)---know why she did not worry?
Lee had spent other nights away from home, Dave.
She didn;t call anybody when he didn;t come home because he'd
spent the night out before. As a matter of fact, he wasn't home every
night.
And her lack of concern for him not only underscores the problems
they were having, but also the fact that he had been out all night on
some other nights, too.
I, myself, can account for a few of those.
I have to say that lee was always home, as far as i know, well
before dawn, and never embarrassed marina by blatantly coming in
openly after being out most of the night. He did it a few times-- I
know about several of these nights out and why they happened.
Marina's failure to make any phone calls---and she had Dutz'
number available for emergencies--is one of just many hints as to my
existence. There are many more, Dave.
Without seeing how everything links together, isolated bits by
themselves might not make as much sense.
For example, a neighbor kept complaining that Lee used his garnage
can. He was a royal pain.
want to know the truth about this little gem?
lee bought a brand-new garbage can and did not even take off its
label, into which we placed trash and some old newspapers, etc. that
were in the two apartments were were cleaning up (Lee had a key to
BOTH 4905 and 4907 the day was with him, and acted as if he' had
previously lived here, matter of fact, in that he knew where the
cleaning materials, broom, etc. was in the 4907 apartment, which
remained empty until lee asked that somebody be placed there to help
protect marina after he began public demonstrations and his public
programs. They duly installed a fellow, who doid not get a job until
about the day Lee left for Mexico City.-
Anyway, this brand new trash can was placed out front because it was
a collection day next day, or at least we thought so. Sctually, it was
already collected--the next day the trash cans had all been taken back
by their owners, and lee was angry because HIS was missing. Marina had
moved in by now, and he was unable to take time to get another one.
So imagine my surprise when we both spotted, in ourt usual drive-
by (I have to explain the drive-bys later, onthe bus)---a brand-new
garnage can a few doors down. There was a small dent right where
LEE's had been dented, and the label was still there, but the "new
owner" had painted his initials on the side of "his" trash can.
That did it for Lee. From then on, he used his trash can that had
been stolen by the "good neighbor." Needless to say, there was bad
blood over the trashcans, and sometimes, if can was full, lee would
actually throw trash into other cans. Nothing to do with CIA or trying
to hide his garbage, Just angry at his can getting stolen. he did
refuse to buy another one and delighted in filling it with trash even
if it had already been previously dumped. He would do it late at night
when the neighbor was asleep.
Imagine the scene. Imagine how Jerry and others would make fun of
this real-life experience, no cloak and dagger here, jusyt a tiff
between people over a stolen garbage can that lee refused to have to
buy twice.
A lot of what went on that summer has some very natural
explanations and --believe me--the truth at other times was strange,
indeed.
For example, lee did not tell marina--for the first time ever, I
think he said to me--where he actually worked. Why? He didn;t want
Marina catching us there together. Lee was checking in late--I have
some observations about that which would be revelatory to you--- and
that meant he was checking out after empoyees had gone home. Usually i
as a matter of fact clocked him out. But we had time to ourselves
there-- we took a bus to go home then that had no reily employees on
it, so we could sit together and talk, etc.
We would ride past our places of residence and ride way down to the
park, and then get off and get the bus coming back toward town, when
we culd 9as, not raining)..... So we took this time together. he would
get off, and then me. The advantage was that Marina never saw us
together except once.
Don't ever believe that poor, lonely Marina was kicking Lee out to
go to the movies just to get him out of her hair as I did read in
Marina and Lee. She was often very difficult, and sometimes she was
impossible, and i don't say that lightly. She seemed to like to make
fun of his manhood -- unbelievable to me, as Lee was generously
endowed in that area. I couldn;t compete with marilyn Monroe, and he
couldn't with her porn magazine males, either.
At any rate, Lee wasn;t at the movies by himself.
Where was my husband? Robert hurt me badly as well. Had he EVER
asked me "what did you do today?" I would in the beginning have to,d
me. I ended up realizing he married me just for sex privileges--and to
get birth control pills, only allowed for marrieds at that time. It
irked me a great deal to wear the ring that proved Robert didn;t care.
Robert allowed ochsner's oil friends to make sure he was kept offsore
as long as possible, and it hurt my feelings again that I, a newlywed
wife, had a husband who didn;t try to get an on-shore job to be with
me.
Once he passed through N.Orleans, and actually dropped me a post
card. Weird, huh? he was in town and dropped his new wife a post card,
but didn;t have tme to stop by and say hello?
Those things hurt me.
There were a number of reasons why lee and I gravitated toward one
another.
And I do believe Lee left his ring on the dresser because as he
told me, "When i come to you, it won't be wearing my wedding band."
Those rings banged against each other when we held hands, so that
we switched our rings to the opposite hands. lee often wore his ring
on his left hand, as do Americans, when he was with me, so that when
we held hands,we would not be reminded of our mates' neglect of us 9as
we saw it) by the clanking together of our rings.
Anyway, just sme details.
I have full accounts of what we did. Imagine my happeness,
many times, when it has explained things that could not be explained
before. A lot of what i wrote in the book I did not know if it was
known or not. Several things i thought would PROVE I knew Lee were
actually well known to others. POther things, though, such as the
bandage Marina saw behind Lee's ear when he was in Russia--I was asked
and immediately told this articular researcher exactly what that was
about-- are still to be known t the outside world.
I'm giving you some details just so you can see that I have full
explanations for everything that seems, on the surface perhaps, to be
an absurdity--such as my claiming that lee deliberately left his ring
behind on Nov. 22. i wasn't there, and i can;t PROVE he left it
behind, but i reported that i thought he would get rid of it. And he
did. David Lifton would say I took a piece of known fact and fitted it
somehow. But how can i do this with literally hundreds of these
things, and it is in fact all accounted for, and a smooth narrative
that makes sense when you have all the details? take out certain
tings--whoever HEARD of a woman having to buy her own ring? or that
lee wore his ring on his right hand, so they hit? I have had
arguments with people who did not understand about russian wedding
bands, etc. I have fought so many things to the point of exhaustion.
but i am telling the truth, and when it is all laid out, there it is.
The truth.
You are an intelligent man.
Do you think i have done this, at this late date, just for the fun
of it? I can think of a lot better ways to fnish my life than having
my reputation, which means everything to me--after all, i am the
mother of five children--mocked and made fun of. The long breeding of
guide and service dogs--dismissed with a few sneers. My degree in
anthropology, all the digs, excavatons, the years of study devoted to
cracking ancient egyptian--dismissed with snide phrases as if i am a
kook or something.
The long, painful raising of four children as a single parent--three
of the four graduating valedictorians--all of them
honorableoutstanding people---ignored, and if tey defend me, they
really are "me"!
yet if they didn;t defend me, that would be criticized, too.
i didn;lt do this for me--look how i am being made fun of, and i
can;t even publish a defense because of Mr. Cox. I didn;t do this
because i am a masochist.
I did this because I stll love lee and feel badly that he is still
being accused. I really tought the evidence would come out that would
exonerate him by now. I avoided it because it literally made me sick--
i saw Lee sot on TV, and everytime I think of that, I want to cry.
Lifton has not had his mother or dad shot before his eyes. he makes
fun of my emotions. It seems it would be very strange, indeed, if
havoing seen that sp[ectacle, i had anted to collect books about it,
delved into it, and by now felt nothing.
On the contrary, my feeliungs are still raw on the subject because i
never talked about it to anyone until now. For a long time, to even
think about it made me want to throw uyp. I got sick talking about it
to Sixty Minutes--twice. Dr. Joe Riehl? i cried and cried as i broke
down and finally told him everything, for the first time to any human
being.
Joe Reihl is the University representative to the Board--in other
words, probably the most popular professor on campus. He commands and
deserves huge respect. If it had not beenfor him, I would not have
allowed the book i wrote to go out at all until after my death. But he
did give me hope that somebody would listen.
I am pouring out my energy and all the limited strength I have (I
have a handicap and I get very tired, I have a reconstructed back and
have chronic pain, it causes typos, etc. also in my writing).
I am doing this because it seems to me the truth was in danger of
beiung lost forever. I thought it would come out without me. I did not
want to hurt marina and her children-=-it was best they had never
known about me. I thought i could never prove about the labs until Ed
haslam somehow uncovered them. i dd not think i could prove my special
CIA-sponsored training until we found proof that my doctors were
trained at just the right time at Oak Ridge, it's on record--with the
CIA noted as being present.
I had saved everything--not just check stubs. I have even some
books Lee gave me, with his handwriting in them. I have knowledge that
has led to new evidence and informatiuon.
I am getting just what i knew would come--disbelief. But I can
hardly bear the twisting of the truth. Now i know how lee must have
felt.
I do not mind honest inquiries and questions. Both you and David
Blackburst have ideas about lee based on what you knew, and I do not
hold any of that against you. I thank God that you are so kind as to
listen.
Robert harris listened for awhile, but did not ask questions.
believe me, I have been questioned by some professionals, so tightly
that it was painful, and they were saisfied. I mean, porfessionals,
interrogating me (compliments of Sixty Minutes and others I am not yet
free to name, known to Howard, etc.).-- had you been there, they with
all their records and their notes and I with nothing, not even a
calendar in front of me.
All i have said comes from experience. no books or any of that.
I memorized many names through mnemonic systems, always to do with
Lee's name in some way, or our birthdays, etc.
So I do remember a "Harvey"--yes, I do. And so on. I can;t go into
all those details now.
But they have checked and doublechecked ,y account, and then gone
out and found I was right.
It isn;t just jack Ruby's finger. My two stripper girlfriends (it's
all in the book)--one of them had heard about Jack Ruby having
undescended testicles. Maybe that's in his autopsy, i don;t know, but
where did i get this from? Not from him, from my YWCA roommate.
But i saw him walk on his hands. this man was athletic and
impulsive, yes--he went right down and walked on his hands. I had told
him how my sister and i had an acrobatic act in Ringling Summer
Circus. i was very athletic at the time and had won several medals at
the U of Fl which i still have in intramurals, one for best al;l-
around athlete.
Yes, I know--she was in cancer research,painted, wrote for
newspapers, spoke Russian, invented a new process for getting
magnesium out of seawater (documented) when still 15 yrs. old-- --and
I now a university-recognized athlete in basketball, volleyball, and
all-round sports--but it's all true, can;t help it.. I've done a lot,
and in the 35 yrs since being forced out of medical research, i found
ways to compensate that would not get me into trouble with the Kennedy
assassination milieu.
Anyway, it's all true.
me, and what i have toi say, and what I've done, and now, added
to this, the incredible saga of watching myself diced and sliced on
the newsgroup, that can;t believe that a woman can not only crochet
(love it!) but also not be afraid to train a stallion 9done that,
too). I've rescued abused children from insane parents -- and received
documented death threats form Mormons on Christmas Eve, so that police
guarded my house all day onm Christmas in Brdenton, Florida.
I've driven my car through waterfalls in Norway, and interviewed
Elie weisel at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremonies in Oslo. I've
corresponded with Bertrand Russell, and own fossilized camel, horse
and bison teeth in a huge fossil collection that includes skin samples
from donosaurs and glyptodonts which I fund on expeditions. I helped
found the Austin City Zoo and founded and funded the first Fort bend
Couny Humane Society.
I'm trying to tell you that having been involved in the kill-Castro
project, to my friends who have seen this and ever so much more--this
is just another footnote in my life. At present, i'd like to return
to finish excavating the Stelly Mound Complex B that Mr. Stelly has
allowed me--but not the state--access to. It is possibly the oldest
site in the entire New Wortld--we think maybe 5,000-6,0000 yrs, old---
at least 4,400 yrs., old site is nearby. I led an expedition two
years ago to this site and we have to radocarbon date the hearths we
found, and the fishbones and artifact pieces. I need fiunds to do
that, but the point is., i did that.
I also was lee's lover, and am not ashamed of that, either.
It wuld be good if you wuld come to see me, and see these things for
yourself. The evidence iu have, and spontaneous answers to anything
whatsoever. you have to ask. if i don't know, I'm not ashamed to tell
you so. There's a lot I did not know.
I am going into all this detail so that you will have a substantial
piece of testimony form me--yet it is only a hundredth of what I can
give to you, and that others have received.
They have seen the evidence, checked out so much.
it isn't just Jack Ruby's finger.
It isn;t just hearing a name fropped in a conference by INCA
executives--LEE heard that and told me about it, when i say i
overheard anything, i overheard a few things, but not exactly that.
between both of us, Lee and I learned an amazing amt. of detail.
I was let in on things through a remartkable accident. I was
fortnate in that carlos marcello, just as he did for Anna, was kind
enough to protect me from harm. It was his personal word that I would
not talk. Believe me, under Trafficante's nose in Gainesville, and
later living in mexico, then Austin, and finally Houston, I had no
opportunity to "speak up" without jeopardizing my loved ones, etc.
Marcello is now dead, and i have had to go to mafia here and re-
establish old ties with those who do remember me.
I am in correspoindence, for example, with Carlos' granddaughter. I
have a hotman on record who remembers lee and me. And of course, Anna
is on tape and film.
Anyone who has heard their testimony knows these people are telling
the truth.
Anna doesn;t even like me--she never liked Lee much, and her husband
badmouthed us later when he was elbowed out of Dave ferrie's place as
we got intense during height of summer there. the money flowed, they
thought we had plenty and were furious, esp. since Dave F. was having
some big affaoirs going on.
I d not know what this claim of "constant companion" in 1963 was
about--i was not there before end of April, and not there after
beginning of Sept.--but during the week, i saw little of dave. other
times, i enjoyed his magnificent mind and his enormous depth of
passion (philosophy, not sex) on several all-night lecture stints.
This man did not have to sleep.
The youth named Miguel or manuel was the one i sawwith him.
I have not heard from Dave Blackburst about the 'constant" companion,
but there was none of tat until end of August, when we had moved most
efforts over to the other house and had phased out the flow of baby
mice....oh, there was a rabbit, does anybody remember the rabbit? Just
wondering.
I have poured this out to you in hopes that you will see how much
this meansto me. ask yourself what in the world I have to gain from
this, instead of just going on to finish my doctorate and go on with
my archeology,. etc. which surely means so much to me.
I have nothing to gain except the hope that Lee will be seen at last
for who he really was.
Time is on my side, unless unprincipled persons such as Lifton
find a way to twist tthe obvious. course he can make me look like a
fool. that's easy. Just make fun of my not having obtained a doctorate
yet after all these years.
better ask why it took 25 long years to get that first degree, after
such a promising start.
It wasn;t because i was stupid.
I am left alive to tell you these things.
You can throw me away and join the others in mocking me, if you
like.
But I think both of you are giving me this chance because you care
about the truth.
i know you've pretty much made up your minds that lee is guilty.
I wasn;t there in dallas, and of course, I believe what he told me.
but i see no reason why we can;t try to array the facts that I know
and just lay them all out. You will see what i do know, and then you
will have to ask yourself what in the world was this man doing that I
did NOT better explain, with what i know.
I malke it all make sense--because the truth WILL make sense. And i
know what went on, because i was there.
i care enough about lee to do this. i also hope one day to be buried
by his side. I won;t be ashamed anymore, for not sticking up fpor him.
Just as George deMohrenschildt said he knew lee would have dfended
HIM--and HE was ashamed. I knpw lee in the same way would have
defended me.
because i am a woman of honor, I cannot let my life pass without
declaring what I do know t be true. No matter what they say about me,
you will find out, i will never change, never back down, though i may
very well go away --having done all i can---and just let time prove me
right.
Thank you for your patience.
Thank you for all you have assembled.
Beware people who say they had exclusive company of Dave that summer--
it was not true.
I apologize for this lengthy email. i have to grade literally
hundreds of papers and don;t know when will be ale to write again. I
have to prepare some way to handle Cox with lawyers.
if you ask Howard, Martin, Dr. Reality 9as i call him) any
questions, they will clarify anything.
Further, there are many others who have received extensive
background material.
if they have received only an outline, as did Paul Hoch (I do not
say he believes me, not at all, but he is still looking at things i
send him, which is all I do ask of any of you-- and very decent of
him)---it is like looking at the skelton of a platypus. It seems
impossibly strange.
But the platypus actually exists. If what happened that summer--
and where it led to in November--had been easytto figure out, you
wouldn;t have all those thousands of articles, stories, books and
speculations out there. But it is a very strange animal--posing as
something it was not--and so fooled everybody. the platypus was an egg-
laying duck to some, a furry, beaver-tailked mammal to others. They
thought it could noit be both. BUT IT WAS.
I can untangle a lot, because i knew a lot about (not all about)
what happened. The details, the explanations--and have some evidence
usually for everything--or they have found it---it all fits together
logically, and atop that, it reveals more of what happened, especially
since there are many things I did not know about going on, which all
of you know about.
I have triedto open emails only when somebody is present, to prove
I do not hunt up information but answer you as soon as i sit there and
go, "Dear god in heaven! WHAT was his name?" tings like that. After
going through a miserable minute or two I almost alway can answer.
Questions can be worded badly.
When Howard told me the "I did NOT say the ring was 'inusual'" I
thought he did not ean the priestly ring, Dave's ring that hre took
off because he said he could not wear it while saying Mass. It was
such a creatire on it.
But I was thrown off-track by Howard's comment at first. then I
decided, well, that STILL is the ring they HAVE to mean. So i did my
best to describe what my eyes had seen so many years ago. I tell you,
it is VERY hard to go back like that, especially knowing if I give the
'wrong" answer, you may then not believe me anymore.
So i have revealed many, many details on so many subjects.
And by the grace of God, to the extent I was involved, you'll see I
was right.
=====
-j
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------
Subject: Cut Finger, Addled Brain
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 03:48:54 GMT
From: Howard Platman <ho...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
In article <3A05D2...@marquette.edu>,
John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> I'm just wondering whether somebody can confirm that this post came from
> Howard *Platzman.* It doesn't sound phony, but the "Howard Platman" in
> the header raises suspicions.
YIKES! AND NOW FOR A WALK ON THE LIGHTER SIDE...
NOW I understand your confusion. Lord knows how the "z" dropped out. I am
posting this to deja, but usually (when I used to post regularly, that
is), I posted via aol. The funny thing is that sometimes when you post to
the group via aol, nothing appears. Whole threads disappear or never
appear to begin with. And that's on the uncensored group. Anyway, I
checked into aol again tonight (under "list all," yes): still nothing. So
I wandered back over to deja and here you all are wondering if I am me.
Sorry for the confusion. I'll try to get to the source of it, but I
certainly didn't write my last name last night. Must be in a default
setting in deja, which is why no one's ever mentioned it before.
Of course, Lifton would take this as proof of my addled brain, which it
is. The neurons are evaporating at an alarming rate. By contrast, John
expresses his dismay, with a touch of concern, I think. There IS a
difference, and it DOES matter. That said... give it a rest, John. I've
had an awful day bordering on an awful year, and you are predicting that
things will only get worse for me if I stick with Judyth. Have a little
mercy on us all and stop debating the non- debate.
In the holiday spirit (or so the ads say),
Howard Platzman
And to all a good zzzzzzzzzzzzz
H
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Finger
Date: 07 Nov 2000 04:03:57 GMT
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
>I'm just wondering whether somebody can confirm that this post came from
>Howard *Platzman.* It doesn't sound phony, but the "Howard Platman" in
>the header raises suspicions.
Aw, I give up. I didn't post to this group, at least not intentionally. I
thought I posted to the other group. But I'm not there; I'm here.
Don't know where The Finger is, but the brain's long since departed.
You're right, David, I am as addle-brained as Judyth.
We deserve each other. And, Martin, I'm sorry for embarassing you. To
have such cohorts!
H
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Finger
Date: 07 Nov 2000 05:49:34 GMT
From: mshack <msh...@concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Frankly, I'm proud to have such cohorts.
And ashamed of those base enough to launch addle-brained attacks.
Martin
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------
Subject: Re: Judyth, Phillips and Bishop, and Reilly
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 20:41:39 GMT
From: dli...@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Says Shackelford:
QUOTE: When "Phillips didn't show up" (Mexico City), Oswald still knew him
(for sure) only as "Bishop." UNQUOTE
THis is typical of the kind of bobbing and weaving by Shackelford as he
tries to preserve the fabric of this unravelling fraud.
Just prior to speaking with me, Judyth spoke for several hours--yes,
hours--with a friend of mine, and she said to him, too, that Oswald knew
Phillips by his real name. David Atlee Phillips. My friend was most
skeptical on this point, and questioned her hard. She stuck to her guns.
But. . . this is all really almost beside the point. I mean: who cares??
This whole story is b.s. but goes to the question of Martin Shackelford's
competence when it comes to evaluating evidence and whether he can
distinguish the false from the real. It also goes to the question of
whether he and Platzman have become Judyth's hopeless enablers when it
comes to the question of vouching for her and getting her little story
launched via a national TV program like 60 Minutes.
Another point---which really deserves a separate post but I'll just say it
here, and that is Shackelford's tricky, deceptive, and manipulative use of
the english language. I note that the question has repeatedly been raised
by people on the newsgroups as to whether Judyth's story has ever changed.
And Shackelford has come back on and repeatedly vouched for her integrity;
and said words to the effect that nothing has changed; that Judyth's story
is essentially the same as when it was first recorded and presented to him
and Platzman (and prior to that Riehl) months ago.
Well, guess what. It has changed. And I suggest that everyone focus hard
on Shackelford's use of the word "essentially".
Because "essentially" is Martin Shackelford's elastic way of saying one
thing, but meaning another. Of hiding behind a word to conceal what is
really going on here. "Essentially" is Martin Shackelford's version of
Clinton's "It depends on what "is" is. The equivalent of Gore's "no
controlling authority."
In fact, the original version of Judyth's story contains a lot of nonsense
that is even worse than that has leaked out via Matt Allison and myself
and--in no small measure--Shackelford. And you will notice that when
eyebrows have been raised and questions asked about "changes", Shackelford
has come back with words to the effect, "Oh no! Don't worry. Nothing has
changed. It is essentially the same."
Well, I suggest that Martin Shackelford take a long breath and define for
us what *he* means by the word "essentially".
Specifically, does it mean *nothing* has been omitted from the original
version?
OR (and this is my opinion). . . Does it mean that he and Platzman perhaps
will be the judges of what is "essential" and that those elements have
remained, while other ridiculous and nonsensical elements have been edited
out?
Please tell us, Martin: Just what do you mean by "essentially"? And why
do we find that word so prominent in your denials that anything has
changed?
Indeed: why is ANY modifier needed when answering the simple question: Has
Judyth's story changed?
Either it has changed, or it has not. Right?
Really, Martin: Inquiring Minds Want to Know. Just what do you mean by
"essentially"? And what editorial license do you grant yourself and what
journey do you and Platzman permit yourselfs to make under that literary
license?
DSL
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------
Subject: Re: Judyth, Phillips and Bishop, and Reilly
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 23:42:02 GMT
From: dli...@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Martin Shackelford:
Re:
"I never said Phillips used his own name with Oswald. That particular
factoid derives from Lifton--and it's also total nonsense."
FYI:
1. Judyth told me on March 4, 2000, as quoted at the beginning of this
thread, that Oswald knew Phillips by his real name.
2. During the same 24 hour period, Judyth spoke with a friend of mine, and
made the same statement. She was cross examined vigorously by my friend,
and Judyth insisted that was the case.
That was a real eyebrow raiser on March 4, 2000. Now, with all the other
stuff thats come out, its just part of an ongoing pattern.
At the very least, Judyth is a fantast. Personally, I think its worse
than that. From close analyzis of my own conversation with her,
personally think she's a combination of con-artist and crackpot.
You apparently do not comprehend the nature of the person you are dealing
with.
Indeed, both you and Platzman, through your fallacious "testing" of her
(using such aids as Mary Ferrell's CD) have only dug youselves in deeper,
become more deeply enmeshed in this fantasy--and, I might add, provided
Judyth with still more information with which to embroider her fantasy.
(And, of course, there is always that word "essentially" which you hide
behind in assuring news group readers that Judyth's story hasn't changed;
or, as you put it, hasn't "essentially changed.")
What is most alarming to me is that both of you guys were more than
willing to see Judyth spouting her nonsense on national TV--which, of
course, is not a scholarly medium at all, but simply a maneuver to try to
escalate the situation and get this lady a book contract.
In an email Judyth sent within a few days of speaking with me--a
conversastion which was very pleasant, by the way, but one in which I
persistently avoided supplying her with any new information--she said that
"David Lifton frightens me". She also complained that I wouldn't provide
information--that I only sought informaiton from her.
Well of course. And imagine such a criticism, from a valid witness! If I
were interviewing someone in the autopsy room, what kind of an interview
would it be if the subject said to me, "First tell me your theory of the
shooting at Dealey Plaza. . . then I'll tell you what wounds I saw."
That's what this lady is involved in. And that's why your questioning her
using Mary Ferrell's CD, or any other aid, is undoubtedly such a farce.
You think you're "verifying" her story. Let me assure you she is smarter
than you are, and she is in fact seeking information. Because that's the
essence of the way she functions: she attempts to "insert" herself into
the existing record.
I was very careful, in my conversation, NOT to provide additional
information. She definitely wanted prominent mention in my book ("What
can I do to make you believe me?" she asked, or words to that effect), and
I made clear to her that, assuming her experience was valid, I would be
more than glad to mention her in a footnote, and include her book in my
bibliography (this, of course, was asssuming she was a valid witness, and
not a fraud).
Within days, Platzman was spreading a false account of the conversation,
and complaining that I "only" offered to put Judyth in a footnote. It was
at that point that I wrote an email to Platzman saying, in effect, "If you
can't be trusted about a conversation that happened just 37 hours ago, why
can you be trusted about an event that occurred 37 years ago?"
You guys have been seduced by a charlatan--who has got a vested
psychological and financial interest in selling a phony story--and the
amazing thing about it (to me at least) is that both of you stubbornly
refuse to believe it, and treat her as a valid source of information.
When are you guys going to get real, and realize the fundmentally
fraudulent nature of this witness?
And if that never happens, well then fine. I trust that people on these
newsgroups are going to realize the kind of "research" in which you are
engaged, and the sort of standards you bring to bear when analyzing
evidence.
DSL
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------
Subject: Judyth's peculiar letter to Bertrand Russell
From: John.M...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
Date: 11/8/00 11:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <3a0a2bcd...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
I have a copy, obtained from the Bertrand Russell Archive, of Judyth
Baker's letter to Russell.
http://www.mcmaster.ca/russdocs/russell1.htm
It's dated May 19, 1968.
It's a birthday greeting that rather gushes its appreciation of the famous
philosopher and anti-war activist. Judyth claims to have been "committed"
to reading everything she could find by Russell.
One important theme of the letter is Judyth's religious views. She thanks
Russell, saying "Your words released me from an adolescence twisted by
guilt and worry about God (Catholic style, then any style), morals, sex,
making money, etc., etc." She says she "began a crazy, 'frigid' 'dedicated
to science' stick-in-the-mud . . ." but with the help of Russell's
philosophy overcame this. She says she "chucked the silly moral
tic-tac-toes for reality, via your counsels."
She ends the letter by saying "May the godlets [sic] bless you . . .
"
She explains in the letter that she is an artist, and is trying to
become a good writer. She remains interested in science, but realizes
her "limitations in that field."
One paragraph of the letter deals with what Judyth calls her "political
activism." She claims to be "frightened at the cost" of her activism,
because of the attitude of the "powers that be" which she describes as
punitive in their view of student dissent and assembly. She claims it's
one's duty to become "compassionately involved with the daily problems of
ordinary people relative to religion, poverty, and minorities . . . ." but
that government wants to ignore these problems and punish those who
publicize them.
There is nothing in the letter about the Kennedy assassination, nor about
Lee Oswald.
.John
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------
Dave