Me, Baker and Lifton
Altasrecrd
I would like to point out that my introduction to Ms. Baker was that of a very
skeptical person.
It resulted in a lot of time, money and research spent looking into her and
the New Orleans world of Lee Oswald.
I learned about much (outside of my pursuit of her account).
I would also like to add that my invective towards David Lifton
is not neccessarily intended to come across as a rubber stamp for
Ms. Baker's account; merely to reflect my most unshakeable
opinion that DSL was BSing you all when speaking of his contact with Baker.
While it might sound like I have something personal against the man, I don't.
I was just quite sincerely floored by his arrogance in his
fabrications re: Baker. Lifton might have been telling the truth about his
opinion of Baker, but he made up facts to support his opinion.
This reveals a rather insecure person who apparently doesn't trust the
legitmacy of relaying his instincts to people.
While I might feel sorry for such a person, it doesn't give him the right to
twist Ms. Baker's words.
At any rate, I, more than anyone, believe all evidence pertaining
to Ms. Baker should be released right now, and given the chance to
demonstrate it's worth or lack thereof.
It's either true or it isn't. And when dealing with a subject that is so
important to the country, it is inexcusable to flaunt possesion of such
evidence but not allow ALL people to view it.
Matt
joez...@my-deja.com
I agree. When can we see Baker's account?
>
> Matt
>
>
--
"We're really in nut country now, Toto."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bill Parker
wrote:
>
> I would like to point out that my introduction to Ms. Baker was that of a very
>skeptical person.
>
> It resulted in a lot of time, money and research spent looking into her and
>the New Orleans world of Lee Oswald.
>
> I learned about much (outside of my pursuit of her account).
>
> I would also like to add that my invective towards David Lifton
>is not neccessarily intended to come across as a rubber stamp for
>Ms. Baker's account; merely to reflect my most unshakeable
>opinion that DSL was BSing you all when speaking of his contact with Baker.
>
> While it might sound like I have something personal against the man, I don't.
I do. He asked me to do him a favor by making him a copy of
a document that I had and he didn't, so I did and mailed it
to him first class, asking in return only for something
interesting he had discovered in his research for his Oswald
book.
Needless to say, he has never sent me anything. When I
called him on it here he produced a string of what I have
come since to learn are typical nasty insults he aims at
those who do not bow and scrape before His Magnificence.
>I was just quite sincerely floored by his arrogance in his
>fabrications re: Baker. Lifton might have been telling the truth about his
>opinion of Baker, but he made up facts to support his opinion.
You've only seen the tip of Iceberg Arrogance.
> This reveals a rather insecure person who apparently doesn't trust the
>legitmacy of relaying his instincts to people.
>
> While I might feel sorry for such a person, it doesn't give him the right to
>twist Ms. Baker's words.
>
> At any rate, I, more than anyone, believe all evidence pertaining
>to Ms. Baker should be released right now, and given the chance to
>demonstrate it's worth or lack thereof.
Yeah, I tried to convince Platzman of this long ago, when he
first hinted that he Had A Secret. (Shhhh!!!)
Hope his Fibromyalgia or whatever is getting better these
days... He seemed to have trouble with his memory and
concentration when I last dealt with him.
> It's either true or it isn't. And when dealing with a subject that is so
>important to the country, it is inexcusable to flaunt possesion of such
>evidence but not allow ALL people to view it.
I couldn't agree more.
Although I do realize what a thankless task it is to spend
one's own time and money on years of research, and present
it on the internet and receive either zero response or
merely a sharp stick in the eye....
Bill Parker
The Great Unwashed
> Howard edited the book, and had to sign a confidentiality agreement.
> Urge all you want, but it isn't up to him.
>
> Martin
>
You're doing a good job Martin. I wish the posters here knew how much
you want this whole story to see the light of day as soon as possible,
and I wish they knew how much you have done to make it possible.
Joe
mshack
in an appropriate forum for more than a year now. You know some of the
obstacles we've encountered, including a recent setback. I'm not sure
why you're writing posts that seem to suggest we're holding things up.
Martin
--
Martin Shackelford
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those
who have not got it." ---George Bernard Shaw
mshack
Urge all you want, but it isn't up to him.
Martin
mshack
Thanks.
Debra Hartman
and professionalism demonstrated below, this case would have been
resolved long ago.
The lies and intellectual dishonesty of government-inspired
disinformation are matched only by the idiocies, financial
motivations, and equally despicable dishonesty of too many of the
long-time conspiracy theorists (not to mention the coarseness and
insane jealousies which rage within one or two deeply disturbed
individuals).
It is amazing that the investigation of a monumental historical event
has been kept alive long enough for the occasional glimpse of truth
amid the torrent of bombast and lunacy on both sides of the issue.
For that we have to thank the best of what once was known as the
American spirit. That is the only spirit in which we will find our
true histonry (and justice in this case), if it is to be had at all in
the 21st Century.
Judyth Baker's story *should* have been investigated; the
investigation, now that it has been acknowledged, should be revealed,
in a logical and concise fashion. We can learn from such
investigations, whether they turn out to be fruitful or not. We
cannot learn from the irrational attacks which have been carried on,
any more than we can learn from false witnesses themselves, But it is
the honesty of the process, how the investigations are done, what was
revealed *even from the investigations of tantalizing stories which
turn out to be false* which provide valuable educational experiences
for true historians and chroniclers of our times.
Some of the most accomplished investigators I know came into
investigations which ultimately proved to be unproductive. The best
stayed around to get it right.
We must never be afraid to be wrong. Sometimes, by taking a wrong
path, we find ourselves on the right one further down the line, wiser
and more sure in our footing the second time around.
Thanks, Matt.
On 24 Oct 2000 11:37:28 GMT, altas...@aol.com (Altasrecrd) wrote:
>
> I would like to point out that my introduction to Ms. Baker was that of a very
>skeptical person.
>
> It resulted in a lot of time, money and research spent looking into her and
>the New Orleans world of Lee Oswald.
>
> I learned about much (outside of my pursuit of her account).
>
> I would also like to add that my invective towards David Lifton
>is not neccessarily intended to come across as a rubber stamp for
>Ms. Baker's account; merely to reflect my most unshakeable
>opinion that DSL was BSing you all when speaking of his contact with Baker.
>
> While it might sound like I have something personal against the man, I don't.
>I was just quite sincerely floored by his arrogance in his
>fabrications re: Baker. Lifton might have been telling the truth about his
>opinion of Baker, but he made up facts to support his opinion.
>
> This reveals a rather insecure person who apparently doesn't trust the
>legitmacy of relaying his instincts to people.
>
> While I might feel sorry for such a person, it doesn't give him the right to
>twist Ms. Baker's words.
>
> At any rate, I, more than anyone, believe all evidence pertaining
>to Ms. Baker should be released right now, and given the chance to
>demonstrate it's worth or lack thereof.
>
> It's either true or it isn't. And when dealing with a subject that is so
>important to the country, it is inexcusable to flaunt possesion of such
>evidence but not allow ALL people to view it.
>
>Matt
>
Bill Parker
wrote:
>As you should know, Matt, we've been trying to release the information
>in an appropriate forum for more than a year now. You know some of the
>obstacles we've encountered, including a recent setback. I'm not sure
>why you're writing posts that seem to suggest we're holding things up.
>
>Martin
I don't understand how "confidentiality agreements" help "to
release the information".
If you had simply posted the information and documentation
here or on the web, everyone in the world who is interested
would have to material available to study.
Or is the only "appropriate forum" one that results in a
financial return?
Just Wonderin'
Bill Parker
joez...@my-deja.com
msh...@concentric.net wrote:
> As you should know, Matt, we've been trying to release the information
> in an appropriate forum for more than a year now. You know some of the
> obstacles we've encountered, including a recent setback. I'm not sure
> why you're writing posts that seem to suggest we're holding things up.
>
Because you're withholding the info pending some $, it appears.
> Martin
> --
> Martin Shackelford
>
> "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by
those
> who have not got it." ---George Bernard Shaw
>
--
The Great Unwashed
<E0A6346223B9A4CE.839F7E7F...@lp.airnews.net>,
wpa...@kendaco.telebyte.net says...
> >in an appropriate forum for more than a year now. You know some of the
> >obstacles we've encountered, including a recent setback. I'm not sure
> >why you're writing posts that seem to suggest we're holding things up.
> >
> >Martin
>
> release the information".
>
> If you had simply posted the information and documentation
> here or on the web, everyone in the world who is interested
> would have to material available to study.
>
> Or is the only "appropriate forum" one that results in a
> financial return?
>
> Just Wonderin'
>
> Bill Parker
>
>
invested funds which he wished to recoup through an exclusive book
contract. I believe that Mrs. Baker is now in the process of
renegotiating those agreements, but the remain binding on those who
signed.
JR
The Great Unwashed
> > in an appropriate forum for more than a year now. You know some of the
> > obstacles we've encountered, including a recent setback. I'm not sure
> > why you're writing posts that seem to suggest we're holding things up.
> >
>
None of these complaints would have been made had not some details
appeared here on the newsgroup. Unfortunately they did, and now Mrs.
Baker is being asked to release a manuscript on which she has been
working for almost two years. As someone who is concerned both with the
JFK case and with Mrs. Baker's well being, I continue to counsel her not
to release information until she has a proper forum. That does not
necessarily mean money ($), but an audience willing to give a full
hearing to what she has to say. At that time, all parties will be able
to check out what she says, and if any fraud is present, it will be
detected.
JR
JR
>
> > Martin
> > --
> > Martin Shackelford
> >
> > "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by
> those
> > who have not got it." ---George Bernard Shaw
> >
>
The Great Unwashed
I agree with what you say below. All the facts about Mrs. Baker should
be laid on the table as soon as practicable. Her story is very complex,
and offers a number of opportunities for further investigation, which
will either confirm or undermine her story. It is a story which justifies
the energies that a number of people have expended on it already, and
whether truth or fiction, it will be released in full. Platzman,
Shackleford and a number of others whith whom Mrs. Baker has corresponded
will see to that. It may take some months before that happens, but it
will happen. Then everyone here will be able to judge for themselves.
If Mrs. Baker provides lines of inquiry which yield new information, her
efforts will merit praise. If not, and her story remains unverifiable,
then a number of people will, as you say below, "learn from such
investigations, whether they prove fruitful or not."
I know that this is ultimately an unsatisfactory answer, but it is the
only answer any of us can give now.
Thanks for crediting some of us with good faith.
JR
In article <39f6792d...@news.earthlink.net>, debhar...@yahoo.com
says...
dli...@my-deja.com
fabrications in anything I have posted. What I have reported comes from the
conversation I have had with her.
Regarding the question of when Judyth spoke last with Oswald:
Apparently, in a prior post, I said it was on the 22nd (i.e. 11/22/63). I
was mistaken. She claimed the last time she spoke with LHO was on the 20th
(i.e., 11/20/63).
To me, this is a rather minor detail, and an innocuous mistake. If I wasnąt
in such a rush, and had not relied on my memory alone, this error wouldnąt
have occurred. In any event, the real issue is what Judyth advised Oswald to
do just prior to the assassination, not whether this conversation was on
11/20 or 11/22.
According to what she told me: it was during that final conversation that
Judyth (who told me that Lee knew he was going to be made a patsy in the
Kennedy assassination) said to him something like: Honey, you could take some
laxatives. You donąt have to refuse. Just say youąre sick. But LHO, who knew
he was being set up, and who knew it all, said he had to appear; that if he
showed up, thereąd be one less bullet aimed at JFK.
Matt Allison has charged that I made up falsehoods about this conversation.
Allison is wrong. I did no such thing.
The problem is not me, but the story itself. The conversation itself‹i.e.
Judythąs story‹is loaded with implausibilities which I found so ridiculous
that I spent little time analyzing it after my initial expenditure of time
(say, about 8 hours) back in March 2000. At that time, I carefully reviewed
what this woman had told me and concluded she was either mentally unbalanced
or a total fraud. I expressed this opinion in an email to two people who
were involved in the initial introduction, which was the reason I called her
in the first place.
I have a nearly verbatim record of the conversation with Judyth.
Anybody who has read BEST EVIDENCE would know that I would never have a
conversation with a witness of this potential importance without being
prepared to make an unimpeachable record. Remember: I was told, at the time,
that she was possibly some sort of historical find, who was genuine, and was
Oswaldąs girlfriend. And the people who performed the introduction are
credible, and were vouching for her bona fides.
When I telephoned her, I had no idea that I would conclude she was a fraud.
To the contrary, I was perfectly prepared‹if she was the genuine article‹to
mention her in my own work, and mention her book in my bibliography. Why
not? Again, I stress: IF she was genuine.
After the conversation (which was in a way self-impeaching because of the
number of whoppers it contained, and her whole demeanor) I couldnąt
understand why any competent researcher would believe her, and I began
wondering where she was getting her "factoids" from. (I may have more to say
about this in the future).
With the exception of an email summary I sent to my two friends, I said
nothing about this lady, or her story, for more than half a year. I did so
as a courtesy. But also: I really couldnąt believe that any competent TV
producer would take what she saying seriously, and I didn't want to get
involved and be made the scapegoat for why her story could not find a
national media outlet.
Again, if I got the date of the last conversation wrong, thatąs my error. It
seems to me a small issue compared to the larger things at stake here‹a
completely false "global" view of the assassination, apparently believed (and
being promulgated) by a number of JFK researchers on the Internet, who have
accorded this woman credibility and bought her absurd story hook, line, and
sinker.
DSL
P.S. A sample of other whoppers‹small and large‹based on what Judyth told me
in March, 2000:
1. Robert Kennedy called over to Spring Hill College in Mobile, when Lee
addressed the Jesuits on July 27, 1963 (source for Judythąs RFK "add-on": Gus
Russoąs book??)
2. At the cancer lab (which, I believe, she said was in Dave Ferrieąs
apartment), they processed" 4,000 mice per month.
3. She found her (first) agent by putting "honest" and "agent" into a search
engine on the internet. (Comment: Just think: if the internet existed back
in 1861, Honest Abe could have been elected that way).
4. She didnąt know of the Garrison investigation at the time it was
happening.
5. She said that she was in love with Lee and wanted to clear his name.
(She would break down and start crying when she said things like this).
6. FINANCIAL:
Her personal income is approximately $12,000 per year.
She had declared bankruptcy in the recent past
She recently turned down 1 million dollars from a major tabloid (she didnąt
make clear why‹just that she did), but the implication is that she didnąt
trust them to treat her account accurately).
PPS: Judythąs previous connection with Kennedy books and data:
(A): based on what she told me:
1. She had read McMillanąs "Marina and Lee"
2. She had read Mailerąs "Oswaldąs Tale"
3. The first thing she did‹in cyberspace‹was punch in Kennedy, and
immediately learned of McAdams, and so read posts by him (presumably on his
web site). She was angered by McAdams "visciousnes" because it showed her
Lee gave his life for nothing.
5. She knew about the Weberman web site (and its my assumption, from the way
she talked of it, that she read material there too)
(B): From what I have learned from my own personal inquiries:
1. She has a CD rom about the JFK case which contains detailed chronological
information
2. The library at the university where she is a student has the 26 volumes of
the Warren Commission, and healthy stock of all the major conspiracy books.
mshack
Howard agreed to help edit the book. In order to do this, he was
required by Judyth's agent to sign a confidentiality agreement, which
only applies prior to publication.
I didn't sign anything, but I gave my word not to release information
pre-publication without permission.
An "appropriate forum" has nothing to do with financial return. It has
to do with being able to present the story fully and coherently.
That said, the agent retains some control, and isn't likely to agree to
simply giving the whole story away on the Net.
As for posting it on the Net, it isn't my story to do with as I please.
Nor is it Matt's. It's Judyth's.
The entire story will come out. I don't know yet exactly when or how,
but there is no question that it will.
No one is going to simply dump it in serial form on the newsgroups,
however, nor try to create a website to fully tell the story--not
something any of us know how to do, anyway, nor can we afford to do it.
I doubt that anyone involved in this will ever realize anything close to
the money they've already put into this, even in a best-case scenario,
and none of us has focused on financial gain as a significant element in
this at any point, nor are we likely ever to do so.
I know that "They're just in it for the money" is one of the oldest
canards leveled against CTers. It's always been bullshit. Don't let
anyone delude you into thinking it's a real factor here.
mshack
"sounds like." Zero, zilch, nada.
Except for the agent, none of us are in this for the money.
mshack
Lifton concedes the conversation wasn't two hours, but closer to the 90
minutes Judyth described.
Lifton concedes she didn't talk with Oswald the morning of the
assassination, but two days earlier, as Judyth has described.
Lifton insists that his posts cantained "no fabrications." Apparently
he's just careless as hell--on times, on dates.
His mistakes are "innocuous." His interpretations of what she said, if
they contain any apparent errors, are "evidence of fraud."
He admits that he spent "little time analyzing" her account. He admits
that he makes errors when he relies "on memory alone." And six months
after a conversation, he wants us to believe his version of it is more
accurate than descriptions given by Judyth the same day or the next.
He says he has "a nearly verbatim record." What does this mean? Notes,
shorthand, a tape recording of the call? And if anything other than the
latter, how do we note his notes are accurate or reliable.
He keeps promising more "in the future," and asks us to rely on his
unsupported opinion in the meantime. Why should we?
He offers what he considers "proofs" that Judyth got her account from
other sources, overlooking in his ignorance the fact that she had
written out her account before she knew about those sources. She was
totally unfamiliar with the literature when this all started. WELL after
her account was written out, she began to look at some of the sources
David mentioned. They were NOT sources for her account. They did in some
cases confirm aspects of it. She learned of the Weberman website only
early this year.
The "CD-ROM" mentioned by Lifton is the Mary Ferrell database. If she
has it at all, she only acquired it recently. This is another source she
wasn't aware of until well after she had written out her account.
It's no surprise that any library has books on the subject. The surprise
is that Lifton feels that's sufficient evidence to prove that:
1) She read them.
2) She concocted her account from them.
Lifton has managed to gather many bits of data. He has no idea what
sequence they go in, however, and his chronology is totally fucked up.
As a result, his conclusions are completely unreliable.
That methodology might explain why he and Jim Fetzer agree on so much.
Altasrecrd
>As for posting it on the Net, it isn't my story to do
>with as I please.
Martin, I must ask you, if Ruth Paine had said "it's
my story, and I'll do with it as I please" would you
have agreed with her?
Do people that are privy to knowledge about a homicide
and wish to exonerate the accused say to a judge "it's my
story and I'll do with it as I please"?
If a newspaper reporter found a startling unknown
witness that had info on a homicide, how long would
he/she wait to report it until the witness found what
they considered a venue to their liking?
For a while maybe. But 17 months??
At what point do we start to recognise the rights of
people to know what is going on?
I waited a *long* time before I even mentioned I was involved
in this investigation. You've been teasing the LNrs for awhile
now.
Remember the post "Martin's secret witness is Judyth
Baker"?
I remember emails around that time that said
"The Cat is out of the Bag". Indeed, starting then, it
really was.
>No one is going to simply dump it in serial form on the newsgroups,
I don't think anyone ever asked for that.
>nor try to create a website to fully tell the story-
Why not? Weberman did. You'll certainly reach more people.
Explain to me why the full story shouldn't come out on a web site.
>not something any of us know how to do, anyway, nor can
>we afford to do it.
I can help, and will if you care to do such a thing.
>An "appropriate forum" has nothing to do with financial return.
>It has to do with being able to present the story fully and >coherently
A web site seems as perfect a forum as any I can think of.
Remember Martin, if the story is true, then there is no reason
to worry about what someone will say about it, is there?
dli...@my-deja.com
Judyth Baker. He has become her de facto promoter and agent. Now he is mad
because slowly, and item by item, this story is unraveling.
Basically, because of the major role he has played, he has been a party to
the creation of his own wilderness of mirrors.
In a recent post, Shackelford refers to a media setback. But of course. No
responsible media outlet 苔nd I stress the world "responsible"--is going to
deal with this story. It is absurd on its face. And as it unravels, and is
seen for what it is, not only will Judyth Baker零 credibility end up in a
shambles; so will Martin Shackelford零.
Here are two more things Judyth told me last March:
(1) Judyth told me that she co-wrote a science fiction story with Lee Oswald.
Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this tale, too, Martin? and you
have the manuscript? Is it in her hand only𠸐r is some of Lee Oswald零
purported handwriting in that document? Is that one of the documents you
have been trying to hawk to media outlets? Is this one of the Oswald
so-called "writings"??
(2) When I asked Judyth how she would answer the question of how she could
have had so much foreknowledge and yet not reported it to the authorities
(prior to 11/22/63), part of her long rambling answer was that, in order to
get greater protection for JFK on his Dallas visit, Lee fomented the
Stevenson incident. That零 right: Lee fomented the Adlai Stevenson incident
so that the authorities would beef up protection on Kennedy.
Question to Martin Shackelford: Did she tell you this tale, too? Any
comment? Do you find it reasonable? Just another one of the adventures in
the life of (or perhaps, more accurately, in the mind of) Judyth
Wonderwoman?
I also want to repeat, and remind anyone reading this post, of other things
she said to me last March, 2000 (some of these are repeats from a previous
post; some are new):
ITEM: Judyth told me that she (and her co-workers in Florida) "knew" the
assassination was going to happen, and so prepared to watch it on TV. (Just
consider the implications of that statement, which was said most
deliberately).
ITEM: Judyth told me that her income was $12.000 per year and that she had
declared bankruptcy in the recent past. She also claimed that she turned
down one million dollars (or some huge comparable sum of money) from a
tabloid for her story.
Question to Martin Shackelford: Did she tell you this? Do you find that
plausible? That a woman in such modest economic circumstances would turn
down a million dollars?
ITEM: Judyth told me that despite her connection with all these evens in
1963, she had no idea of卟nd never heard of𡑕he Garrison investigation at the
time it was occurring. And in fact, Judyth said she didn靖 get re-interested
in all this until she saw the movie JFK, in 1991. (And she even had the
details wrong there: it was not released as video until some time later in
1992, yet Judyth said one of her children brought the video home; and that零
when she first saw the movie𠸐n video, in 1991).
Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this? Forget the error about
format. Do you find that plausible𡑕hat she didn靖 know about the Garrison
investigation at the time it was occurring?
ITEM: Judyth told me that at the "cancer lab" at Dave Ferrie零 apartment,
they "processed" 4,000 mice per month.
Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this, too? Do you find that
plausible? Do you understand what it would mean to be "processing" 4,000
mice per month? (Martin: do you know anyone who has a pet gerbil? Do you
know what it would mean to have 4,000 of them house in Ferrie零 apartment?)
ITEM: Judyth told me, in connection with her alleged knowledge of Lee零 visit
to lecture at the Jesuit college at Spring Hill, Alabama, that Robert Kennedy
made a phone call there.
Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this? Do you find that plausible?
That Robert Kennedy was calling Lee Oswald at the Jesuit House of Studies,
and that she, Judyth Baker, knew about this?
SUMMARY COMMENT: I don靖 think one has to know the "order" in which these
facts go to find them implausible. These items are---individually or
collectively𤷫nherently implausible.
Do you believe the story of Goldilocks and the three bears because the story
is told in some particular order? (Maybe you do!!)
Again I say to anyone reading this post: Martin Shackelford, by becoming one
of Judyth零 enablers and promoters, has hopelessly entangled himself in a
wilderness of mirrors that is partly of his own making.
At the point when it finally dawns that this story is a complete fantasy and
a fabrication ("corroborated" here and there by well-known kernals of truth
that this woman absorbed from the public record) her credibility is going to
go down the drain, and Martin Shackelford零, along with it, for promoting and
supporting this ridiculous story.
I have seldom seen such irresponsible behavior and such a total lack of
judgment on the part of a JFK researcher.
DSL
joez...@my-deja.com
msh...@concentric.net wrote:
> And Joe's "it appears" carries the same evidentiary weight as McAdams'
> "sounds like." Zero, zilch, nada.
> Except for the agent, none of us are in this for the money.
Well, if the current holdup isn't a publishing contract (and the $
therein), what's the current holdup, then?
>
> Martin
> --
> Martin Shackelford
>
> "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by
those
> who have not got it." ---George Bernard Shaw
>
--
"We're really in nut country now, Toto."
joez...@my-deja.com
The Great Unwashed <gu@new_times.net> wrote:
> In article <8t7c9n$rg1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, joez...@my-deja.com
says...
> > In article <39F65B...@concentric.net>,
> > msh...@concentric.net wrote:
information
> > > in an appropriate forum for more than a year now. You know some
of the
> > > obstacles we've encountered, including a recent setback. I'm not
sure
> > > why you're writing posts that seem to suggest we're holding
things up.
> > >
> >
>
> None of these complaints would have been made had not some details
> appeared here on the newsgroup. Unfortunately they did, and now Mrs.
> Baker is being asked to release a manuscript on which she has been
> working for almost two years. As someone who is concerned both with
the
> JFK case and with Mrs. Baker's well being, I continue to counsel her
not
> to release information until she has a proper forum. That does not
> necessarily mean money ($), but an audience willing to give a full
> hearing to what she has to say.
Other than a book contract, what other forums have been considered?
What other forums would be acceptable? Why hasn't the info been
released there?
Is the current holdup the book contract?
> At that time, all parties will be able
> to check out what she says, and if any fraud is present, it will be
> detected.
>
> JR
>
> JR
> >
> > > Martin
> > > --
> > > Martin Shackelford
> > >
> > > "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by
> > those
> > > who have not got it." ---George Bernard Shaw
> > >
> >
joez...@my-deja.com
> in an appropriate forum for more than a year now.
Other than a book, what other types of forums have been considered?
Can you provide an example of another forum that would be considered
appropriate?
> You know some of the
> obstacles we've encountered, including a recent setback. I'm not sure
> why you're writing posts that seem to suggest we're holding things up.
>
> Martin
> --
> Martin Shackelford
>
> "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by
those
> who have not got it." ---George Bernard Shaw
>
--
joez...@my-deja.com
msh...@concentric.net wrote:
> To summarize:
> Lifton concedes the conversation wasn't two hours, but closer to the
90
> minutes Judyth described.
> Lifton concedes she didn't talk with Oswald the morning of the
> assassination, but two days earlier, as Judyth has described.
>
> Lifton insists that his posts cantained "no fabrications." Apparently
> he's just careless as hell--on times, on dates.
>
> His mistakes are "innocuous." His interpretations of what she said, if
> they contain any apparent errors, are "evidence of fraud."
>
> He admits that he spent "little time analyzing" her account. He admits
> that he makes errors when he relies "on memory alone." And six months
> after a conversation, he wants us to believe his version of it is more
> accurate than descriptions given by Judyth the same day or the next.
>
> He says he has "a nearly verbatim record." What does this mean? Notes,
> shorthand, a tape recording of the call? And if anything other than
the
> latter, how do we note his notes are accurate or reliable.
>
> He keeps promising more "in the future," and asks us to rely on his
> unsupported opinion in the meantime. Why should we?
Isn't this precisely what you're doing regarding Baker's account?
You're promising us more in the future, and asking us to rely on your
word in the meantime. As you ask, why should we?
--
"We're really in nut country now, Toto."
mshack
Now he's stuck desperately defending his position, despite his shaky
grasp of her account.
mshack
Beyond that, no comment.
McAdams was the first to mention, Judyth, Joe.
I was holding off until the whole thing came out. I still am.
mshack
You have been using a series of very bad parallels, from Woodward and
Bernstein (would that be Lifton and McAdams? or you?--I don't see
anybody who qualifies for that parallel in the slightest) to a standard
homicide case.
The newsgroup is not the right way to release this story.
You are playing into the hands of Lifton and McAdams.
I won't cooperate in any way with that.
Yes, I "Remember the post "Martin's secret witness is Judyth Baker"? It
was McAdams' post, not mine.
If Judyth chooses to put the story out on a website, that's fine with
me--I'm not going to usurp that decision. No one has a right to hijack
her story and do it themselves at this point. Show a little respect for
her, Matt.
I'm not worried about what someone will say about the story, once it is
all out there.
But when and how it is fully released isn't your decision to make, Matt.
Debra Hartman
>Matt, you're being very self-righteous about this,
No. He isn't. He's being restrained, and he's acting like a serious
person.
>but you're wrong.
No. The person who is wrong is the person who is declining to air the
facts in this matter. That person is Ms. Baker, isn't it?
>You have been using a series of very bad parallels, from Woodward and
>Bernstein (would that be Lifton and McAdams? or you?--I don't see
>anybody who qualifies for that parallel in the slightest) to a standard
>homicide case.
That is exactly what it is. Maybe there are those who want to learn
every detail of Ms. Baker's extraordinary, "renaissance woman"
accomplishments. If so, she should have written her book about those
accomplishments.
An audience for such a book could probably be counted on the fingers
of one hand. The *only* "marketable" interest in Ms. Baker is her
relationship (or her concocted relationship) to the accused murderer
in the crime of the [20th] Century. Period.
>The newsgroup is not the right way to release this story.
It has already become that. And let me tell you whom you have to
blame. You have Ms. Baker to blame. *She* chose the venue.
Let me explain. It was not McAdams nor Lifton (who collectively have
the analytical ability of a large cabbage) who discerned that the
"witness" you were referring to was Baker. It was Isabell Kirby.
Weeks ago, Isabell wrote something mildly supportive of your "witness"
posts, but concluded by saying, "we don't need another Oswald
girlfriend". Shortly thereafter, McAdams and Lifton jumped on that
post. Perhaps you should have asked yourself at the time why Isabell
would have made this throw-away comment. And perhaps you should have
asked *her*. Had you done so, you might have learned that Ms. Baker
had been busily reading and writing to persons on this newsgroup for a
long time, and her first choices were not you and those who have since
"researched" her story. Instead, they were people who immediately
discerned (one of those persons actually had several very lengthy
telephone conversations with her), that she had nothing *at the time*
to link her personally to Oswald. For a number of reasons, those who
heard it discounted her story based on what she was saying at the
time.
It is now obvious that Ms. Baker has magically come up with "hard
evidence" to link her to Oswald. She *did not* have that evidence
when she made her first newsgroup contacts. I think "magically" is a
good word for Ms. Baker, because her claimed accomplishments should
make her far more than a prodigy. They should make her a
world-renowned phenomenon. Cancer Research, Egyptology, Linguistics,
Literature, Dog Breeding, debunkery of Mormonism--all capped off with
an early affair (unbeknownst to any investigator alive prior to a
couple of years ago) with Lee Oswald.
>You are playing into the hands of Lifton and McAdams.
Lifton and McAdams are doing exactly what you should have expected
them to do.. To quote Dean Andrews, in what for Mrs. Baker is a
double entendre, "They are eternal, like cancer." They are taking
every advantage of the fact that, once more, conspiracy theorists (in
Lifton's case, conspiracy theorists other than himself, and who he
hopes make even his own theories look tame by comparison) have been
taken in by yet another hoax. No one has helped them more with that
than Ms. Baker herself, and whoever it is who is "confirming" for you
her "unique" knowledge of "little known" facts about Oswald.
In short, Ms. Baker has given McAdams and Lifton the opportunity to
have a field day by making fools not only of those like yourself who
are associated with her but, by false analogy, anyone who rejects the
official story of the assassination of JFK. The entire intent is to
show just what dupes "conspiracy believers" are.
>I won't cooperate in any way with that.
Then there is no hope for you..
>Yes, I "Remember the post "Martin's secret witness is Judyth Baker"? It
>was McAdams' post, not mine.
See above. This was all derived from a post by someone who recognized
that you were referring to Baker when you alluded to a "witness" and
knew that Baker's story was suspect for reasons you are not aware of.
She sent you a warning in that post that you should have pursued.
Had you done so, you might have saved yourself and others a great deal
of public embarrassment.
>If Judyth chooses to put the story out on a website, that's fine with
>me--I'm not going to usurp that decision. No one has a right to hijack
>her story and do it themselves at this point. Show a little respect for
>her, Matt.
Respect? You really have to be kidding. This woman is refusing to
"release" those of you who are honoring "confidentiality agreements"
because she knows the jig is up. I agree with you that, at this
point, it has *nothing* to do with money (although no one should ever
underestimate the depths to which publishers will stoop--after all,
there are books on Beverly Oliver, Chauncey Holt, body alteration,
etc.). I am convinced that what is really going on in this case is
that if her full story is released, Baker is well aware it will not
withstand scrutiny. One person who spoke with her on several
occasions prior to her contacts with you stated that she is quite
intelligent, and I believe that is probably the case. Being "quite
intelligent", she now realizes her earlier versions will be exposed.
She has, after all, been reading this newsgroup for a long time and
continues to do so. She realizes that there are those who know how
her story has "greatly improved" over time.
She would rather slip away and come back another day. After all,
Chauncey Holt's daughter is now making the rounds of the nut circuit
with a "video". Ricky White is no doubt still hoping to write his
"book". Ms. Baker probably expects at least as much.
Contrary to your current position, you should be demanding more of her
*than anyone else*.
>I'm not worried about what someone will say about the story, once it is
>all out there.
If you are not, you must be the most naive person in the world, and
that is the nicest way I can put it.
>But when and how it is fully released isn't your decision to make, Matt.
Oh? Are you saying that Matt doesn't have the constitutional right to
free speech? I'm sorry, I missed the coup which set you and/or Ms.
Baker up as dictator[s].
You made an honest mistake. You are compounding it by refusing to
acknowledge the obvious and the inevitable.
Jerry
Thanks for a very hard-hitting and well-reasoned post. I hope Martin
listens.
Let me comment on just one point you made. The Oswald story is "out
there" and information about an "affair" wouldn't change anything.
What Judyth would need to do is have knowledge of *the assassination* -
either substantiation that Oswald did it or why OR knowledge that
substantiates that a conspiracy was afoot.
If she did/does she's worth a book; otherwise, not.
Jerry
In article <39f9bc7c....@news.earthlink.net>,
Debra Hartman
>Debra,
>
>Thanks for a very hard-hitting and well-reasoned post. I hope Martin
>listens.
>
>Let me comment on just one point you made. The Oswald story is "out
>there"
Yes, it is. Unfortunately you and your pals have tried to obscure it.
>and information about an "affair" wouldn't change anything.
It could have, had there been an affair. There is no way to predict
what might be changed by verifiable *new* information. John Elrod, a
*genuine* witness to events pertaining to Oswald on 11-22-63 changed
everything re an accurate understanding of Oswald. *That* story is
still unfolding, and has led to the crucial body of government
documents re who killed JFK. It might still have eventually emerged
without Elrod's contribution (actually quite limited, but of great
import), but it would have taken much, much longer.
>
>What Judyth would need to do is have knowledge of *the assassination* -
No, she would not. Had she been genuine, she could have had knowledge
re Oswald's associates in New Orleans. That part of this history is
still breaking.
>either substantiation that Oswald did it or why OR knowledge that
>substantiates that a conspiracy was afoot.
See above. There is already ample evidence of that. A *true*
associate of Oswald in New Orleans could still add important
historical data to the new investigation. There are such people.
They have yet to be forthcoming.
>
>If she did/does she's worth a book; otherwise, not.
A moot point.
Stuart Wexler
having the goods on Baker (translation: more than a second-hand account or
support for that second-hand account), they seem just as unwilling and
ambiguous about what they have. Whereas Martin and others are under either
ethical or real obligations to withhold what they know, there is absolutely
no reason for the others to, at the same time, criticize Martin for not
violating this obligation while keeping their "debunkery" to themselves.
Alot of people are stubborn in their beliefs. Alot of people feel they
*know* what happened and who to trust, who is reliable. Thus I'm very
skeptical, no matter how often I agree with someone or how thorough they
are, when I see alot of second-hand accounts or ambiguity.
To get to the point: will the people who have the "goods" on Judyth
[Lifton, Hartman] post their evidence, reveal their sources, give us the
skinny, or at least explain to us why they can't do so??
Until that point, I will take the position of suspending judgement until
Judyth's story comes out.
-Stu
"Debra Hartman" <debhar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39f9bc7c....@news.earthlink.net...
Jerry
What makes you think it will ever come out? Russo knows of many similar
claims, eg, "Little Lee" that were floated to scant interest and died.
They've had no takers in nearly two years. I guess "hope springs
eternal".
mshack
It's amazing how little you know about this, and how much you think
you know.
Judyth is contractually prevented from blurting her story out on a
newsgroup or website. She, too, has to wait until it goes public under
certain conditions. the confidentiality pledges were demanded by HER
AGENT, not by Judyth.
In a sense, you're blaming the victim here.
No, Judyth is NOT the one "declining to air the facts." She has
cooperated with every reasonable plan to do so, so far without results.
SHE chose to bring this up on the newsgroup? Bullshit. McAdams was
the first to name her, and Lifton was the first to report alleged
portions of her account under her name. Judyth has not made any of these
choices.
You are jumping to as many crazy conclusions as McAdams on this.
Debra Hartman
>Deb,
>
> It's amazing how little you know about this, and how much you think
>you know.
You don't have a clue as to what I know, Martin. The only reason it
has not already been aired is that no one involved is in any
particular hurry to give aid and comfort to people like McJackass--and
why should they? Baker seems to be doing that job herself. The
sources of my knowledge are unimpeachable. And, unlike Ms. Baker *or*
McAdams, they have no axe to grind.
> Judyth is contractually prevented from blurting her story out on a
>newsgroup or website. She, too, has to wait until it goes public under
>certain conditions. the confidentiality pledges were demanded by HER
>AGENT, not by Judyth.
Is this supposed to impress me, or anyone else? What you are saying
is that she sought to commercialize her story, got commercial help,
and is now beholden to those who are seeking to commercialize her
account. Not a very attractive story.
Let's compare this to someone I consider to be one of the most
important genuine Oswald witnesses in this case, John Elrod (who has
never received a dime from anyone, and *didn't ask*.) The La
Fontaines were writing a book on the new evidence in the case, and in
the course of their investigative reporting, they were advised (by
historical document researcher Bill Adams) of the documentation
surrounding Elrod, whose arrest record they discovered, and which had
been concealed for years in Dallas Police files. With Adams' help,
they accumulated a great deal of official documentary evidence re
Elrod's story, and produced a television interview of Elrod, which ran
nationally numerous times *because it was news*. They could have
held the interview until the release of the book and used it to
promote the book. Instead, because it was news, they chose to
release it at the earliest possible time. They ran a newspaper story
simultaneously with the initial television story. Thus, the public
had over two years to digest and pursue Elrod's story prior to the
release of their book--which went far beyond Elrod to the heart of
this case.
A year later, as additional documentary evidence (from official files,
and again found in many cases by Bill Adams) became available, they
published a second, extremely lengthy article on Elrod *and additional
news unrelated to him* in the Washington Post. Again, they scooped
themselves. In the interest of the newsworthiness of the story.
To this day, the story of Elrod is still unfolding; even more
importantly, what his story *led to* is still being pursued by other
serious investigators--an opportunity open to any serious student of
the case. Many persons (including yourself, as I recall--how ironic)
have attempted to debunk Elrod, and other aspects of the La Fontaine
news stories and book. The attempts have all failed, and the
historical record is stronger today for having been assailed from
every possible angle.
Which brings us back to Ms. Baker. If she were the real thing ,
neither she nor her sponsors should have anything to fear or risk by
releasing her story. If she withstands the scrutiny, her commercial
projects will be an even bigger success. If she does not, she will
fade away. You should be willing to take that chance whether she is
or not. That is what professionalism is about. As far as I'm
concerned, signed "confidentiality agreements" are entirely related to
commercialism. And commercialism *by definition* is never about news.
> In a sense, you're blaming the victim here.
Excuse me? Ms. Baker is a victim? Of whom?
> No, Judyth is NOT the one "declining to air the facts." She has
>cooperated with every reasonable plan to do so, so far without results.
> SHE chose to bring this up on the newsgroup? Bullshit.
She certainly did. By singling out this newsgroup and writing to
numerous persons who post here. Long ago. When you began posting
about your "mystery witness", it became obvious to some people who you
were relying on. They already *knew* her from her contacts with them
or persons known to them.
>McAdams was
>the first to name her, and Lifton was the first to report alleged
>portions of her account under her name.
So what? Is there more than one "Oswald girlfriend"?
>Judyth has not made any of these
>choices.
I'm sorry, Martin. I find you very, very naive. Is it because she's
a woman? It seems to me that men are more susceptible to women. Just
an observation.
She's made *all* the choices, Martin, including the decision to
commercialize her story. No one held a gun to her head and told her
to hire an agent. Or does she claim that, too?
> You are jumping to as many crazy conclusions as McAdams on this.
I never jump to conclusions. Ms. Baker had a reputation which
preceded her. She *created* it. And she has now lived up to it. I
and others only became fully aware of that when some of her claims
were published here--claims which you have confirmed. Sooner or
later, you are going to have to come to grips with it. That part has
nothing to do with McAdams. But he was at the ready to make it
excellent material for exploitation. I'd think long and hard about
that if I were you.
mshack
You're provided a number of clues as to what you know and who your
sources were ("unimpeachable" is very misleading, under the
circumstances)--that's why I"m not impressed.
As for the sham argument about "nothing to fear" if she's telling
the truth, you continue to overlook the problem of a lawsuit by her
former agent. I'm not going to advise her to take that risk, and when
you do it's a real cheap shot. You don't know the situation well at all,
and yet, like Jerry, you're full of advice.
"Signed confidentiality agreements"? I didn't sign a damn thing. I
gave my word. That's all I needed to do, as far as I was concerned. Your
argument seems to be that "a professional" would break it. I'm not that
kind of "professional."
You falsely imply that I made reference to Oswald's girlfriend.
That was McAdams. For someone who doesn't want to give him "aid and
comfort," you're certainly remembering a lot in his favor--something YOU
need to "think long and hard about."
If you think gender influences my response to a witness, take a
look at what I've written about Jean Hill.
When you actually have some reliable information, I think you'll
find yourself in for a few surprises.
fit...@my-deja.com
msh...@concentric.net wrote:
> Deb,
>
> It's amazing how little you know about this, and how much you
think
> you know.
> Judyth is contractually prevented from blurting her story out on
a
> newsgroup or website. She, too, has to wait until it goes public under
> certain conditions. the confidentiality pledges were demanded by HER
> AGENT, not by Judyth.
> In a sense, you're blaming the victim here.
> No, Judyth is NOT the one "declining to air the facts." She has
> cooperated with every reasonable plan to do so, so far without
results.
> SHE chose to bring this up on the newsgroup? Bullshit. McAdams
was
> the first to name her, and Lifton was the first to report alleged
> portions of her account under her name. Judyth has not made any of
these
> choices.
> You are jumping to as many crazy conclusions as McAdams on this.
>
> Martin
> --
to be fired and his or her non-performance here in landing a book
contract would seem to give here all the excuse she needs. In fact, I
believe you said in an earlier post that she fired her first agent. At
worst, she would have to pay some kind of financial penalty. Tell her
to get a good lawyer.
fitz
joez...@my-deja.com
Debra Hartman
thought at present--I have concluded this before, unrelated to Ms.
Baker--but now I'm convinced. You cannot even follow a constructive
argument. I began this thread by saying that Isabell Kirby had made a
reference to our not needing another "Oswald's girlfriend", and that
that was what brought McAdams and the other guy (honestly forget his
name) into the frey. You insisted that they were the ones who started
it (don't know why that is important to you) and now, when I refer
again to my initial post, you've forgotten all about it, and think I'm
accusing *you* of referring to Oswald's girlfriend. I think you've
been at it too long, defending the indefensible.
You have written several times of "signed" confidentiality agreements.
No one said you signed one. But you said others did.
Since you seem to have become somewhat paranoid about all this
(understandable, perhaps, under the circumstances), and have begun to
talk in circles, I think it is time for me to bow out. I genuinely
hate to see this happen to you and the other sincere people who
believe Ms. Baker. But I can see that you're just going to have to
experience it.
Let me conclude by saying that it is not my contention that Ms. Baker
has "nothing to fear". She has a great deal to fear. I said no one
had anything to fear by making the story public *if true*. That's the
rub. She knows it. But she's still stringing you along, allowing you
to dangle in the wind, buffeted by what she has wrought.
art guerrilla
kampers, oxymoron alert:
> Tell her
>to get a good lawyer.
hee hee hee
ann vote-nader-or-sue-the-bastards archy
eof
mshack
complications, due to the provisions of the original contract.
art guerrilla
martino evaded-
>We're way ahead of you on that, Fitz, but there remain legal
>complications, due to the provisions of the original contract.
well (adopting my best ell enn er stance),
why don't you post the contract, and post
the statements of the witnesses to the
contract, and post the dates of the notary
publics service and number, and post the
names of everyone's parents and their
social security numbers, and post the
phone numbers of all involved, and post the
dna structure of judy, and post the tax
returns of you and your spouse, and post
copies of any and all paperwork anyone
who has ever even seen judy has in their
possession, and post the losing lotto tix
they have, and post the names of their pet
dogs and cats, and post the evidence the
shroud of turin is real, and post the last
known location of amelia earhart, and post
the solution to fermat's theorem, and post
the last of the mohicans, and post the
secret recipe for kay eff sea chicken, and
post the reason there is missing dark
matter, and...
until you do all these things marty, your
credibility is unproven and judy is a
fraud...
(*and* if you do post these things, we'll
just think up some more...)
ann vote-nader-or-burden-of-proof archy
eof
archsta...@my-deja.com
digde...@aol.comoc.loa (art guerrilla) wrote:
>
> martino evaded-
>
> >We're way ahead of you on that, Fitz, but there remain legal
> >complications, due to the provisions of the original contract.
>
> well (adopting my best ell enn er stance),
> why don't you post the contract, and post
> the statements of the witnesses to the
> contract, and post the dates of the notary
> publics service and number, and post the
> names of everyone's parents and their
> social security numbers, and post the
> phone numbers of all involved, and post the
> dna structure of judy, and post the tax
> returns of you and your spouse, and post
> copies of any and all paperwork anyone
> who has ever even seen judy has in their
> possession, and post the losing lotto tix
> they have, and post the names of their pet
> dogs and cats, and post the evidence the
> shroud of turin is real, and
post the last
> known location of amelia earhart,
ahem. Amelia Earhart was discovered by Captain Janeway and the crew of
Voyager in suspended animation somewhere in the Delta quadrant.
and post
> the solution to fermat's theorem, and post
> the last of the mohicans, and post the
> secret recipe for kay eff sea chicken, and
> post the reason there is missing dark
> matter, and...
>
> until you do all these things marty, your
> credibility is unproven and judy is a
> fraud...
> (*and* if you do post these things, we'll
> just think up some more...)
>
> ann vote-nader-or-burden-of-proof archy
>
> eof
>
>
--
Arch Stanton
"...this being, so brilliant yet so corrupt, which,
like a rotten mackerel by moonlight, shines and stinks."
--- JFK quoting Senator John Randolph
JLeyden900
>From: mshack <msh...@concentric.net>
>Date: Sun, Oct 29, 2000 04:46 EST
>Message-id: <39FBEC...@concentric.net>
>
>Deb,
>
> It's amazing how little you know about this, and how much you think
>you know.
> Judyth is contractually prevented from blurting her story out on a
>newsgroup or website. She, too, has to wait until it goes public under
>certain conditions. the confidentiality pledges were demanded by HER
>AGENT, not by Judyth.
> In a sense, you're blaming the victim here.
> No, Judyth is NOT the one "declining to air the facts." She has
>cooperated with every reasonable plan to do so, so far without results.
> SHE chose to bring this up on the newsgroup? Bullshit. McAdams was
>the first to name her, and Lifton was the first to report alleged
>portions of her account under her name. Judyth has not made any of these
>choices.
> You are jumping to as many crazy conclusions as McAdams on this.
>
>Martin
jpshinely recently reposted some of your posts (for what reason I'm not sure)
which showed you were on line talking about your "witness" at least as earlyj
as last May. True, you didn't name her but you provided what journalists call
a "lead." That's all a good reporte or researcher needs many times to run
down a story. So let's give McAdams due credit for being a good
reporter/researcher in this case. Did he remember to thank you, I wonder?
JGL
John McAdams
I wouldn't expect to agree with Matt Allison on anything much, but the
following is an entirely sensible post.
>>msh...@concentric.net
>
>>As for posting it on the Net, it isn't my story to do
>>with as I please.
>
> Martin, I must ask you, if Ruth Paine had said "it's
>my story, and I'll do with it as I please" would you
>have agreed with her?
>
Martin thinks that the Paines' tax returns ought to be released --
contrary to Federal law, and to the principle of privacy.
> Do people that are privy to knowledge about a homicide
>and wish to exonerate the accused say to a judge "it's my
>story and I'll do with it as I please"?
>
> If a newspaper reporter found a startling unknown
>witness that had info on a homicide, how long would
>he/she wait to report it until the witness found what
>they considered a venue to their liking?
>
> For a while maybe. But 17 months??
>
With no end in sight.
> At what point do we start to recognise the rights of
>people to know what is going on?
>
> I waited a *long* time before I even mentioned I was involved
>in this investigation. You've been teasing the LNrs for awhile
>now.
>
>Remember the post "Martin's secret witness is Judyth
>Baker"?
>
> I remember emails around that time that said
>"The Cat is out of the Bag". Indeed, starting then, it
>really was.
>
>>No one is going to simply dump it in serial form on the newsgroups,
>
> I don't think anyone ever asked for that.
>
>>nor try to create a website to fully tell the story-
>
> Why not? Weberman did. You'll certainly reach more people.
>
I'm sure Deanie would *love* to post the whole thing. She already
*has* a web site. It would be easy.
> Explain to me why the full story shouldn't come out on a web site.
>
>>not something any of us know how to do, anyway, nor can
>>we afford to do it.
>
> I can help, and will if you care to do such a thing.
>
A lot of people can help, and it would be essentially trivial to put
it on the web.
>>An "appropriate forum" has nothing to do with financial return.
>>It has to do with being able to present the story fully and
>coherently
>
> A web site seems as perfect a forum as any I can think of.
>
I really think when Martin says "fully and coherently" he means "in a
context where we can spin it as credible.
The the whole damn book manscript isn't "full," and "coherent" and "in
context" I can't imagine what would be.
>
> Remember Martin, if the story is true, then there is no reason
>to worry about what someone will say about it, is there?
>
> It's either true or it isn't.
>
Matt seems to doubt that it is :-).
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm