Discussion:
OT -- A Thank-you, of sorts...(ironic, and yes, just a tad sarcastic)
(too old to reply)
j***@gmail.com
2017-05-26 01:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility -- wait! was that the only reason she begged me to become
part of her 'team' to begin with? -- but for outlining a far deeper
cover-up of the assassination of JFK that anything I could have possibly
imagined. In fact, were it not for the duplicity and utter historical
depravity of Judyth and her story, I might have uncovered this phenomenon
and have been unable to believe that it might be true! Suffice it to say,
I am using the key concept that I have uncovered in one of my upcoming
books on the JFK assassination -- no, not the limo book -- that will
follow more traditional concepts -- but the book In Broad Daylight that
has haunted me since my first trip to Dallas in 1997.

Basically, what does this concept consist of? Let me give you a preview.
First of all, however, I must say that I will be putting forth an
hypothesis, which I will then demonstrate. That does not mean that I am
trying to force anyone to 'believe' anything. Instead, I hope to persuade
you that my position has merit.

My hypothesis starts with the axiom that Judyth's only significance in the
JFK research community is that of a counterfeit Marina. Her entire intent,
right from the start, was to overshadow and replace Marina. We are
supposed to stop thinking about Marina. In fact, we are to forget Marine
even existed.

Why is this? Let me tell you.

What happened to Marina during the 1980's? Can we recall?

Let's think….hmmm….

Marina recanted.

Marina, who had once been convinced (by what she had been shown) that Lee
Oswald was guilty, had now read the 27 volumes of WCR Hearings and
Exhibits, and she decided he was innocent.

Oh yeah <yawn> you may say…we already know that. No big deal.

Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay
of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?
And yes -- you would have to cover that up!

So in slithers Judyth to divide the research community and make waves
wherever she goes, turning everyone's preconceived concepts upside
down…

And the rest, as we say, is history -- or, in this case, pseudo-history…

Thank you, Judyth!


http://findingjudyth.blogspot.com/2017/05/who-knew-0.html

Pamela Brown
BT George
2017-05-26 21:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
mainframetech
2017-05-27 03:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
She has done a couple videos of her newer beliefs, but you can't expect
her to jump into the lion's den with the truth at this late date. She has
reasonable peace and quiet, and if she told the truth now, they would
hound her to death with follow ups and all kinds of requests for more
news. She won't tell the truth unless it was on a death bed, and I doubt
it then.

Chris
John McAdams
2017-05-27 03:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
She has done a couple videos of her newer beliefs, but you can't expect
her to jump into the lion's den with the truth at this late date. She has
reasonable peace and quiet, and if she told the truth now, they would
hound her to death with follow ups and all kinds of requests for more
news. She won't tell the truth unless it was on a death bed, and I doubt
it then.
Let's see: in your world, the Z film is faked. The Backyard Photos
are faked. The autopsy photos and x-rays are faked. The limo
windshield now in the Archives is faked. All the ballistic evidence
is faked.

The autopsy report is a pack of lies.

And now Marina is lying.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
BT George
2017-05-27 11:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 26 May 2017 23:02:37 -0400, mainframetech <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:
- show quoted text -
Let's see: in your world, the Z film is faked. The Backyard Photos
are faked. The autopsy photos and x-rays are faked. The limo
windshield now in the Archives is faked. All the ballistic evidence
is faked.

The autopsy report is a pack of lies.

And now Marina is lying.

.John
-----------------------

But there is hope. He agrees that JFK wasn't faked and that he really was
slayed by gunfire in Dealey Plaza. Pretty much everything else is up for
grabs.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-28 01:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
- show quoted text -
Let's see: in your world, the Z film is faked. The Backyard Photos
are faked. The autopsy photos and x-rays are faked. The limo
windshield now in the Archives is faked. All the ballistic evidence
is faked.
The autopsy report is a pack of lies.
And now Marina is lying.
.John
-----------------------
But there is hope. He agrees that JFK wasn't faked and that he really was
slayed by gunfire in Dealey Plaza. Pretty much everything else is up for
grabs.
You're not trying hard enough. There are some kooks who believe a JFK
double was used and that JFK lived, maybe retired to Florida.
When you paint with a broad brush make sure you put on enough paint.
mainframetech
2017-05-29 02:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
- show quoted text -
Let's see: in your world, the Z film is faked. The Backyard Photos
are faked. The autopsy photos and x-rays are faked. The limo
windshield now in the Archives is faked. All the ballistic evidence
is faked.
The autopsy report is a pack of lies.
And now Marina is lying.
.John
-----------------------
But there is hope. He agrees that JFK wasn't faked and that he really was
slayed by gunfire in Dealey Plaza. Pretty much everything else is up for
grabs.
Apparently you were unable to argue for your beliefs very well, so you
need to try the ad hominem path. Ah well. I tried to get some truth to
you. I suppose that truth threatened your beliefs too much and you had to
try and stop it before it overturned your world.

Chris
Bud
2017-05-27 11:44:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
She has done a couple videos of her newer beliefs, but you can't expect
her to jump into the lion's den with the truth at this late date. She has
reasonable peace and quiet, and if she told the truth now, they would
hound her to death with follow ups and all kinds of requests for more
news. She won't tell the truth unless it was on a death bed, and I doubt
it then.
Let's see: in your world, the Z film is faked. The Backyard Photos
are faked. The autopsy photos and x-rays are faked. The limo
windshield now in the Archives is faked. All the ballistic evidence
is faked.
The autopsy report is a pack of lies.
And now Marina is lying.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
This is how conspiracy hobbyist think the WC should have investigated.
Step one, throw out all the evidence of Oswald`s guilt. Then proceed.
s***@yahoo.com
2017-05-27 23:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
She has done a couple videos of her newer beliefs, but you can't expect
her to jump into the lion's den with the truth at this late date. She has
reasonable peace and quiet, and if she told the truth now, they would
hound her to death with follow ups and all kinds of requests for more
news. She won't tell the truth unless it was on a death bed, and I doubt
it then.
Let's see: in your world, the Z film is faked. The Backyard Photos
are faked. The autopsy photos and x-rays are faked. The limo
windshield now in the Archives is faked. All the ballistic evidence
is faked.
The autopsy report is a pack of lies.
And now Marina is lying.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
This is how conspiracy hobbyist think the WC should have investigated.
Step one, throw out all the evidence of Oswald`s guilt. Then proceed.
Or investigate the behavior of everyone EXCEPT Oswald.

It is odd isn't it? In their mind everybody's behavior is suspect except
for Oswald's. E.g., Oswald is found in a theater possessing a revolver and
with extra bullets in his pocket. To any normal person that's odd
behavior. Who goes to a movie with a revolver? And carries extra bullets?
Especially someone who was in the building where shots were reportedly
fired at the president. Is he interested at all in those events? Why not?

But to the conspiracy crowd the strange behavior is that of Brewer and
Postal and the DPD. WHY did they go to theater? WHY did Brewer notice
Oswald?

If they were hired to defend Oswald they couldn't do a better job.
mainframetech
2017-05-29 02:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Bud
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
She has done a couple videos of her newer beliefs, but you can't expect
her to jump into the lion's den with the truth at this late date. She has
reasonable peace and quiet, and if she told the truth now, they would
hound her to death with follow ups and all kinds of requests for more
news. She won't tell the truth unless it was on a death bed, and I doubt
it then.
Let's see: in your world, the Z film is faked. The Backyard Photos
are faked. The autopsy photos and x-rays are faked. The limo
windshield now in the Archives is faked. All the ballistic evidence
is faked.
The autopsy report is a pack of lies.
And now Marina is lying.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
This is how conspiracy hobbyist think the WC should have investigated.
Step one, throw out all the evidence of Oswald`s guilt. Then proceed.
Or investigate the behavior of everyone EXCEPT Oswald.
It is odd isn't it? In their mind everybody's behavior is suspect except
for Oswald's. E.g., Oswald is found in a theater possessing a revolver and
with extra bullets in his pocket. To any normal person that's odd
behavior. Who goes to a movie with a revolver? And carries extra bullets?
Especially someone who was in the building where shots were reportedly
fired at the president. Is he interested at all in those events? Why not?
But to the conspiracy crowd the strange behavior is that of Brewer and
Postal and the DPD. WHY did they go to theater? WHY did Brewer notice
Oswald?
If they were hired to defend Oswald they couldn't do a better job.
Those that take a revolver and extra bullets into a theater were
those that were afraid for their lives and felt the need for protection.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-29 23:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Bud
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
She has done a couple videos of her newer beliefs, but you can't expect
her to jump into the lion's den with the truth at this late date. She has
reasonable peace and quiet, and if she told the truth now, they would
hound her to death with follow ups and all kinds of requests for more
news. She won't tell the truth unless it was on a death bed, and I doubt
it then.
Let's see: in your world, the Z film is faked. The Backyard Photos
are faked. The autopsy photos and x-rays are faked. The limo
windshield now in the Archives is faked. All the ballistic evidence
is faked.
The autopsy report is a pack of lies.
And now Marina is lying.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
This is how conspiracy hobbyist think the WC should have investigated.
Step one, throw out all the evidence of Oswald`s guilt. Then proceed.
Or investigate the behavior of everyone EXCEPT Oswald.
It is odd isn't it? In their mind everybody's behavior is suspect except
for Oswald's. E.g., Oswald is found in a theater possessing a revolver and
with extra bullets in his pocket. To any normal person that's odd
behavior. Who goes to a movie with a revolver? And carries extra bullets?
Especially someone who was in the building where shots were reportedly
fired at the president. Is he interested at all in those events? Why not?
But to the conspiracy crowd the strange behavior is that of Brewer and
Postal and the DPD. WHY did they go to theater? WHY did Brewer notice
Oswald?
If they were hired to defend Oswald they couldn't do a better job.
Those that take a revolver and extra bullets into a theater were
those that were afraid for their lives and felt the need for protection.
Chris
That's what Oswald told the KGB officers in the Soviet Embassy in Mexico
City.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-28 01:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
She has done a couple videos of her newer beliefs, but you can't expect
her to jump into the lion's den with the truth at this late date. She has
reasonable peace and quiet, and if she told the truth now, they would
hound her to death with follow ups and all kinds of requests for more
news. She won't tell the truth unless it was on a death bed, and I doubt
it then.
Let's see: in your world, the Z film is faked. The Backyard Photos
are faked. The autopsy photos and x-rays are faked. The limo
windshield now in the Archives is faked. All the ballistic evidence
is faked.
The autopsy report is a pack of lies.
And now Marina is lying.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
This is how conspiracy hobbyist think the WC should have investigated.
Step one, throw out all the evidence of Oswald`s guilt. Then proceed.
You never seem to pay attention. I told you a long time ago that the
branch of conspiracy kooks you are complaining about are called The
Alterationists. So, who was it who constantly refuted them and PROVED
that the Zapruder film is authentic? Was it YOU? Or McAdams? Or any WC
defender? No.

I was the one, a conspiracy believer. Not an alerationist.
Bud
2017-05-29 02:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
She has done a couple videos of her newer beliefs, but you can't expect
her to jump into the lion's den with the truth at this late date. She has
reasonable peace and quiet, and if she told the truth now, they would
hound her to death with follow ups and all kinds of requests for more
news. She won't tell the truth unless it was on a death bed, and I doubt
it then.
Let's see: in your world, the Z film is faked. The Backyard Photos
are faked. The autopsy photos and x-rays are faked. The limo
windshield now in the Archives is faked. All the ballistic evidence
is faked.
The autopsy report is a pack of lies.
And now Marina is lying.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
This is how conspiracy hobbyist think the WC should have investigated.
Step one, throw out all the evidence of Oswald`s guilt. Then proceed.
You never seem to pay attention.
<snicker> To you?
Post by Anthony Marsh
I told you a long time ago that the
branch of conspiracy kooks you are complaining about are called The
Alterationists. So, who was it who constantly refuted them and PROVED
that the Zapruder film is authentic? Was it YOU? Or McAdams? Or any WC
defender? No.
I was the one, a conspiracy believer. Not an alerationist.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-28 02:06:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
She has done a couple videos of her newer beliefs, but you can't expect
her to jump into the lion's den with the truth at this late date. She has
reasonable peace and quiet, and if she told the truth now, they would
hound her to death with follow ups and all kinds of requests for more
news. She won't tell the truth unless it was on a death bed, and I doubt
it then.
Let's see: in your world, the Z film is faked. The Backyard Photos
are faked. The autopsy photos and x-rays are faked. The limo
windshield now in the Archives is faked. All the ballistic evidence
is faked.
The autopsy report is a pack of lies.
And now Marina is lying.
About what though? Marina did lie about some things.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Mitch Todd
2017-05-29 01:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
She has done a couple videos of her newer beliefs, but you can't expect
her to jump into the lion's den with the truth at this late date. She has
reasonable peace and quiet, and if she told the truth now, they would
hound her to death with follow ups and all kinds of requests for more
news. She won't tell the truth unless it was on a death bed, and I doubt
it then.
Let's see: in your world, the Z film is faked. The Backyard Photos
are faked. The autopsy photos and x-rays are faked. The limo
windshield now in the Archives is faked. All the ballistic evidence
is faked.
The autopsy report is a pack of lies.
And now Marina is lying.
He's been saying that Marina lies for some time. He's one
of those folks whose beef isn't with the WC, but with
reality itself.
mainframetech
2017-06-02 21:20:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
She has done a couple videos of her newer beliefs, but you can't expect
her to jump into the lion's den with the truth at this late date. She has
reasonable peace and quiet, and if she told the truth now, they would
hound her to death with follow ups and all kinds of requests for more
news. She won't tell the truth unless it was on a death bed, and I doubt
it then.
Let's see: in your world, the Z film is faked. The Backyard Photos
are faked. The autopsy photos and x-rays are faked. The limo
windshield now in the Archives is faked. All the ballistic evidence
is faked.
The autopsy report is a pack of lies.
And now Marina is lying.
He's been saying that Marina lies for some time. He's one
of those folks whose beef isn't with the WC, but with
reality itself.
Naah. You got it wrong again! I definitely have a beef with the WC who
knew they were putting on a show to make it look like the murder as done
by Oswald, as a 'lone nut' killer.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-03 12:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
She has done a couple videos of her newer beliefs, but you can't expect
her to jump into the lion's den with the truth at this late date. She has
reasonable peace and quiet, and if she told the truth now, they would
hound her to death with follow ups and all kinds of requests for more
news. She won't tell the truth unless it was on a death bed, and I doubt
it then.
Let's see: in your world, the Z film is faked. The Backyard Photos
are faked. The autopsy photos and x-rays are faked. The limo
windshield now in the Archives is faked. All the ballistic evidence
is faked.
The autopsy report is a pack of lies.
And now Marina is lying.
He's been saying that Marina lies for some time. He's one
of those folks whose beef isn't with the WC, but with
reality itself.
Naah. You got it wrong again! I definitely have a beef with the WC who
knew they were putting on a show to make it look like the murder as done
by Oswald, as a 'lone nut' killer.
Chris
Don't blame them. They were ordered to do it.
mainframetech
2017-05-29 02:13:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
She has done a couple videos of her newer beliefs, but you can't expect
her to jump into the lion's den with the truth at this late date. She has
reasonable peace and quiet, and if she told the truth now, they would
hound her to death with follow ups and all kinds of requests for more
news. She won't tell the truth unless it was on a death bed, and I doubt
it then.
Let's see: in your world, the Z film is faked. The Backyard Photos
are faked. The autopsy photos and x-rays are faked. The limo
windshield now in the Archives is faked. All the ballistic evidence
is faked.
The autopsy report is a pack of lies.
And now Marina is lying.
WRONG! I don't think the backyard photos are faked. However, the
Z-film has proof that it was faked, which Douglas Horne has put forward,
that can be viewed by anyone. he limo windshield is indeed faked if you
follow the purpose in it's making. SOME of the 'leaked' photos of the
autopsy are altered. I don't know what ballistic evidence you're speaking
about, but if it's to do with the final kill shot, the proof is available
for anyone to see. The Autopsy Report is NOT what the prosectors
concluded DURING the autopsy, and anyone that followed the statements of
those that were part of the autopsy know what that was.

And finally, Marina answered about her fears of being deported in
official files:

"Mr. Rankin. After the assassination, did the police and FBI and the
Secret Service ask you many questions?

Mrs. Oswald (Marina). In the police station there was a routine regular
questioning, as always happens. And then after I was with the agents of
the Secret Service and the FBI, they asked me many questions, of
course--many questions. Sometimes the FBI agents asked me questions which
had no bearing or relationship, and if I didn't want to answer they told
me that if I wanted to live in this country, I would have to help in this
matter, even though they were often irrelevant. That is the FBI." WC
hearings Vol 1, page 79 Also pg. 410

Marina was threatened with deportation. Since the key factor was to
get the public sucked in to the story of the 'lone nut' killer, it is
likely they made her say all kinds of things to support their phony
theory.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-29 21:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
She has done a couple videos of her newer beliefs, but you can't expect
her to jump into the lion's den with the truth at this late date. She has
reasonable peace and quiet, and if she told the truth now, they would
hound her to death with follow ups and all kinds of requests for more
news. She won't tell the truth unless it was on a death bed, and I doubt
it then.
Let's see: in your world, the Z film is faked. The Backyard Photos
are faked. The autopsy photos and x-rays are faked. The limo
windshield now in the Archives is faked. All the ballistic evidence
is faked.
The autopsy report is a pack of lies.
And now Marina is lying.
WRONG! I don't think the backyard photos are faked. However, the
Z-film has proof that it was faked, which Douglas Horne has put forward,
that can be viewed by anyone. he limo windshield is indeed faked if you
follow the purpose in it's making. SOME of the 'leaked' photos of the
autopsy are altered. I don't know what ballistic evidence you're speaking
about, but if it's to do with the final kill shot, the proof is available
for anyone to see. The Autopsy Report is NOT what the prosectors > Chris
concluded DURING the autopsy, and anyone that followed the statements of
those that were part of the autopsy know what that was.
And finally, Marina answered about her fears of being deported in
"Mr. Rankin. After the assassination, did the police and FBI and the
Secret Service ask you many questions?
Mrs. Oswald (Marina). In the police station there was a routine regular
questioning, as always happens. And then after I was with the agents of
the Secret Service and the FBI, they asked me many questions, of
course--many questions. Sometimes the FBI agents asked me questions which
had no bearing or relationship, and if I didn't want to answer they told
me that if I wanted to live in this country, I would have to help in this
matter, even though they were often irrelevant. That is the FBI." WC
hearings Vol 1, page 79 Also pg. 410
Marina was threatened with deportation. Since the key factor was to
get the public sucked in to the story of the 'lone nut' killer, it is
likely they made her say all kinds of things to support their phony
theory.
The following video summarizes Chris's attitude toward all the evidence
against Oswald:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+seinfeld+elaine+fake&view=detail&mid=7F82D362AFDF06FF2D0B7F82D362AFDF06FF2D0B&FORM=VIRE
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-28 02:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
She has done a couple videos of her newer beliefs, but you can't expect
her to jump into the lion's den with the truth at this late date. She has
reasonable peace and quiet, and if she told the truth now, they would
Who would? You? You've never even met her. Most serious researchers are
respectful of the difficult position she was put into. We know what she
lied about and why.

Do you think the State Department would evict her today if she told the
whole story?

Didn't she SAVE Nixon's life when she locked Lee in the Bathroom all day?
Post by mainframetech
hound her to death with follow ups and all kinds of requests for more
news. She won't tell the truth unless it was on a death bed, and I doubt
it then.
Chris
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-02 17:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
Marina considers Lee innocent o firing the shots that killed JFK. She
thinks he was set-up to be the patsy.
Bud
2017-06-03 00:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
Marina considers Lee innocent o firing the shots that killed JFK.
Can you quote her saying this?

And does she still think he shot at Walker?
Post by j***@gmail.com
She thinks he was set-up to be the patsy.
She might have said that, but I don`t see any reason to believe she
thinks that. Perhaps I give her too much credit.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-04 13:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
Marina considers Lee innocent o firing the shots that killed JFK.
Can you quote her saying this?
And does she still think he shot at Walker?
Post by j***@gmail.com
She thinks he was set-up to be the patsy.
She might have said that, but I don`t see any reason to believe she
thinks that. Perhaps I give her too much credit.
Maybe because you've never talked to her, Mr. Slick.
OHLeeRedux
2017-06-05 13:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
Marina considers Lee innocent o firing the shots that killed JFK.
Can you quote her saying this?
And does she still think he shot at Walker?
Post by j***@gmail.com
She thinks he was set-up to be the patsy.
She might have said that, but I don`t see any reason to believe she
thinks that. Perhaps I give her too much credit.
Maybe because you've never talked to her, Mr. Slick.
Neither have you. Your claim to have done so is a damnable alternative
fact.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-06 14:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
Marina considers Lee innocent o firing the shots that killed JFK.
Can you quote her saying this?
And does she still think he shot at Walker?
Post by j***@gmail.com
She thinks he was set-up to be the patsy.
She might have said that, but I don`t see any reason to believe she
thinks that. Perhaps I give her too much credit.
Maybe because you've never talked to her, Mr. Slick.
Neither have you. Your claim to have done so is a damnable alternative
fact.
I talked to her when she came to the Harvard conference.
Bud
2017-06-07 00:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
Marina considers Lee innocent o firing the shots that killed JFK.
Can you quote her saying this?
And does she still think he shot at Walker?
Post by j***@gmail.com
She thinks he was set-up to be the patsy.
She might have said that, but I don`t see any reason to believe she
thinks that. Perhaps I give her too much credit.
Maybe because you've never talked to her, Mr. Slick.
Neither have you. Your claim to have done so is a damnable alternative
fact.
I talked to her when she came to the Harvard conference.

Anthony Marsh
2017-06-07 21:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
Marina considers Lee innocent o firing the shots that killed JFK.
Can you quote her saying this?
And does she still think he shot at Walker?
Post by j***@gmail.com
She thinks he was set-up to be the patsy.
She might have said that, but I don`t see any reason to believe she
thinks that. Perhaps I give her too much credit.
Maybe because you've never talked to her, Mr. Slick.
Neither have you. Your claim to have done so is a damnable alternative
fact.
I talked to her when she came to the Harvard conference.
http://youtu.be/lIjqdRiM3Pc
Silly. I didn't say I graduated from Harvard.
Why can't you learn to GOOGLLE?


http://www.fermentmagazine.org/jfka.html




Symposium On The 30th Anniversary Of The Assassination Of
President John F. Kennedy
Harvard University, November 12-14, 1993
Ferment
Volume VIII#4
Updated and edited
November 18,2003
Introduction
" A paranoid is a person who has all the facts"
- Daniel Ellsberg
This introductory section holds information and observations about the
speakers commentators at this conference of a decade past. In the
following section I discuss their fundamental conclusions , around which
there was a remarkable consensus .

The report then covers in as much detail as possible, the more
outstanding presentations, including those from several surprise visitors.

The Speakers
The conference opened at 7 P.M. in Langdell, the ancient Greek
bank-vault style building housing the law library at Harvard. Most of
the speakers were drawn from what one might call the "research
community" , a closely associated collection of academics, journalists
and writers that has grown up over the 3 decades since the Kennedy
assassination.

Because of the illness of the keynote speaker, Richard Goodwin ( creator
of the Alliance for Progress under Kennedy and the Great Society under
Johnson) , the opening address was delivered by Carl Oglesby, founder of
SDS. As he was called in on such short notice her merely re-read the
text of a speech he'd given at a similar conference in Chicago the
previous spring.

After presiding over the collapse of SDS in the 60's ( We are not
implying that the blame was his : SDS itself was to blame, althouth he
was partly to blame for SDS) , Oglesby has concentrated much of his
energy these last twenty years, into probing the Kennedy assassination:
its principal actors, their motives, the cover-ups. He's written 3 books
on the subject. In a low voice he outlined the ideas in the consensus
opinion. They would be fleshed out, extensively documented and
supplemented over the week-end.

Oglesby's prime defect as a speaker, shared by many of us, is that it's
often difficult to shake off the posturing, sometimes outright
silliness, of 60's New Left rhetoric. In those days many of us imagined
it to be effective public speaking. Chalk it up to our karma. ( Yowl! )

Carl Oglesby's presentation was followed by those of Theresa Seay and
Edgar Tatro. Theresa Seay writes about political assassinations. In 1979
she was called to the meetings of the House Select Committee on
Assassinations, where she presented arguments against the Warren
Commission report.

Ed Tatro is a high school and college teacher in Quincy, Mass. A
heavyset, verbose, energetic man, he has been trying for 25 years to
dump most, if not all , of the blame for the JFK assassination onto
Lyndon Baines Johnson. His obssession had a way of undermining his
credibility. He raced through an hour long slide show that proved
nothing, speaking in a rapid-fire manner with much waving of arms, salty
language, vehement accusations and humor varying greatly in its level of
taste. If LBJ had in fact been one of the sinister architects of the
assassination conspiracy, this did not seem to be the way to going about
preparing the inditement.

Following Ed Tatro's presentation , there was a short introductory talk
by Bob Groden. He would be speaking for 2 hours the next afternoon and I
will return to him. Then the Friday night session adjourned.

Saturday morning's sessions were held in the large Auditorium B of the
Harvard Science Center, a hideous building with little relevance to
either art or science , designed by Jose-Luis Sert. They opened at 9:30
AM. The stated focus was "Oswald - The Man and the Myth" . Persons
familiar with the field will recognize the high quality of all the
speakers, including:

Peter Dale Scott: Author of many excellent analyses of the
interconnections of the Vietnamese War, the Kennedy assassination, the
Mob, the international traffic in drugs, and American intelligence
agencies.In his spare time he teaches English at UC Berkeley, where I
met him in 1984 and signed him up for a Ferment subscription for 6
months. He has always regarded me oddly: as one of those
'de-institutionalized' writers who therefore lack credibility, yet who
also, for exactly that reason, are also the only 'real' writers around -
a dilemma that only bothers English teachers at universities.

John Newman: He is the proponent and chief defender of the argument
that JFK's refusal to commit ground troops to VietNam was the primary
motive for the assassination. He's with the University of Maryland .

Phillip Melanson has spent many years tracing the interconnections
between the major American political assassinations of the 60's: JFK,
RFK, MLK (1) (*1) and, as my friend Rush Harp, a conspiracy obssessive
in Woodstock ,NY, might have said before his sudden death under
mysterious circumstances in 1983: MJK! ( Mary Jo Kopecnek )) . Rush
invested a large sum of his own money into placing a billboard on the NY
Thruway outside Saugerties which asked, in giant letters:

JFK? RFK? MLK? MJK? NO WAY !
He placed a letter almost every week in the Woodstock Times about his
own investigations into these assassinations. It wouldn't surprise me
that he had indeed uncovered something) . During the Conference,
Melanson focused on the thick fog of mystery surrounding Oswald's years
in Russia.

Dick Russell, an investigative journalist, talked about the testimony of
Richard Case Nagell, a career spook whose path intersected Oswald's in
Japan, Europe, and the U.S. I recommend his 800 page book " The Man Who
Knew Too Much" Holt, Rinehart & Winston, as an example of dangerous,
difficult, comprehensive investigative journalism at its best.





Marina Oswald Porter appeared for 1 hour on Saturday to field questions
and present her point of view. Her remarks will be discussed below.





From 2 to 4 questions were addressed to a panel consisting of Russell,
Melanson, Newman, Scott, and Jim DiEugenio. (Unfortunately I missed it,
citing my customary lack of a civilized income as excuse). I returned at
4 to watch Robert Groden's two hour slide and videotape show covering
all the non-trivial photographic evidence from Dealey Plaza on the
afternoon of November 22, 1963.

Groden's interest in the assassination goes back 30 years. He served as
Staff Photographic Consultant for the House Select Committee on
Assassinations, and was a consultant to Oliver Stone for the movie JFK
.He is the leading expert on the photographic record of the JFK
assassination, and has recently issued both a book and a videotape. The
thick volume of photographs with commentary ,"The Killing of a
President", is published by Viking . The videotape: "JFK- The Case For
Conspiracy " makes the relevant core of the Zapruder film available to
the general public for the first time. It can be obtained from New
Frontier Productions, P.O. Box 2164, Boothwyn, Pa, 19061, for $29.00

For me Groden was the most persuasive of Saturday's speakers. Neither
hysterical nor opinionated, with no obvious ax to grind, his careful
analysis of the photographic record left me with the feeling of having
witnessed a credible reconstruction of the physical facts of the event.

The night sessions for Saturday were held, once again, in Langdell. Gary
Mack is a radio and television announcer from Forth Worth, Texas. He is
the person who thought up the idea of examining the acoustic record left
on the tapes of the Dallas police. He is also known as the discoverer of
the Badge Man , a possible candidate for one of the assassins, whose
intriguing outline appears on a Polaroid photograph taken by a spectator
in the Plaza. The FBI collected all the photographs they could find;
many of them were never returned, but are supposed to become available
shortly in the thousands of boxes of documents from theKennedy
adminstration being released at this time. Her snapshot was returned
because it didn't seem to have anything on it, but Mack and a team at
Bolt, Beranek and Newman in Cambridge had , through blow-up and
enhancement techniques, discovered a number of figures in it, one of
whom does indeed seem to be firing a gun.

I did not stay for a review of the medical evidence by Dr. Douglas Sells
and Roger Feinman, which appeared to be a re-statement of material
previously presented.

For all of Sunday we were in Langdell. All of the sessions were panel
discussions organized around the themes: " JFK and the Mass Media" "JFK
and the Mafia, "JFK and Cuba" , " JFK and Vietnam" , "JFK and the
Intelligence Community" . The title for the morning session was : The
Taboo of Conspiracy - Mass Media and Academia". All of the speakers were
dissident journalists, (which still existed in 1993 in America) : Danny
Schechter , Jerry Policoff, Jim DeEugenio, Roger Feinman, Gary Mack and
Jim Marrs.Following the lunch break came the remaining 4 panels:

"JFK and the Mafia" was moderated by Peter Dale Scott and David
Scheim, with Edgar Tatro being given about 5 minutes to speak. Scheim
specializes in research on the Mafia and is known for his book:
"Contract on America: The Mafia Murder of JFK".

" JFK and Cuba" was moderated by Gaeton Fonzi and Warren Hinckle.
Fonzi is a journalist, author of a recent book about the assassination,
"The Last Investigation". Warren Hinckle, former editor of Ramparts and
neo-Dada muckracking journalist for the San Francisco Chronicle, was a
sorry disappointment. Clearly he had things to say but he hadn't
prepared any of it.

" JFK and Vietnam" was dynamite. We will be going over that in some
detail. It included presentations by John Newman, Peter Dale Scott and
Daniel Ellsberg, whose appearance on the panel was a welcome surprise.

The last panel was "JFK and the Intelligence Community." John
Stockwell was listed as speaker but did not put in an appearance. There
was nothing very new about any of the material presented until the
microphone was passed to John Judge, who said some very disturbing
things that we will be discussing. John Jodge is a co-founder of the
Committee for an Open Archive and an specialist on the history of U.S.
Intelligence agencies.

The Two Standard Models
Constantly at the fore in all discussions were the two "standard
models", two contrasting scenarios of what really happened in Dealey
Plaza at 12:25 on November 22, 1963.

The first is the official version sanctified by the 26 volumes of the
Warren Commission and pushed with missionary zeal by virtually the
entire mainstream press up to the present day.

The other is the opinion of the Research Community, differing in many
details but with a virtual consensus in the grand outlines. I came away
with the conviction that the official version is deliberately contrived
rubbish and that the model of the research community is much closer to
the truth.

However, and this is very important, I also received the distinct
impression that there was a political agenda within the conference as
well , even as there is clearly a political agenda in the government
version. This agenda is nowhere as insidious , and one should certainly
begin by accepting the research community's model as a basis for further
understanding; yet it was irritating, sometimes amusing, to hear so many
speakers so proud of their 'objectivity', who were clearly falling in
lockstep with an unspoken commitment to conformity.

It was annoying when much of the auditorium stood up to give a rousing
applause to Marina Oswald, when it was obvious to me, ( and should have
been even more so to them, being experts in the field), that she was
telling one lie after another, lies that could have easily been exposed
by a few skillful questions that no-one seemed to have the nerve to ask.
I don't think she's in the service of any agency, national or foreign;
her lies were motivated by personal fears. Then again, why invite her to
a conference ostensibly designed to get at the truth?

For two solid hours the media were blasted in vituperative language in
the panel discussion : "The Taboo of Conspiracy - Mass Media and
Academia". However the only peep of a criticism heard against the
Academy came from someone who had invited Mark Lane to come give a talk
at his college and nobody attended!

It looked to me like the usual academic hatchetjob against the press. We
all know that academics are better scholars than journalists, (that is
to say, people who are obliged to spend so much time out in the field
that they haven't got time to "learn anything". )

A more balanced judgment came from Danny Schechter, a cross-blend of
academic and TV producer. (co-founder of Globalvision, and one time
Nieman Fellow at Harvard). He expressed frank disgust at the
neo-Chomskyian ( and it appears that a lot of this media bashing in the
academies does originate with Chomsky) contempt shown towards the media,
and asked people to examine the real structural problems faced by
reporters and editors who are trying to communicate to the mass of the
public. As Schechter described it, through historical reasons of various
sorts, the mass media simply do not have the tools to properly deal with
any serious or complex issue. Even a sincere TV producer could not,
without the rigid format imposed upon TV programming , sort out all of
the labryinthian details , let alone the moral, political or ideological
issues associated with the Kennedy assassination.

Still, even Danny Schechter could barely restrain his outrage when it
came to the specific issue of systematic media sabotage of truth in
accounts of Kennedy assassination. He re-iterated the view, stated
several times during the conference, that despite a 30 year cover-up at
the highest levels, despite a propaganda program worthy of Goebbels
himself, only 6% of the American public believe the Warren Commission's
version. Commercial journalism is out of step with the public - and
knows it. Schechter also condemned the media campaign to smear Garrison
as hitting an 'appalling and unique' lowpoint in modern journalism.

Despite this lone voice of reason, any sort of attack on the academy, or
on its bloodlust against the media as evidenced in the Chomsky school of
media-bashing, was the Taboo part of the title : " The Taboo of
Conspiracy - Mass Media and Academia."

Another unspoken prohibition was that one should say nothing critical of
Oliver Stone's movie, JFK . I haven't seen JFK ; I decided not to see it
after watching the trailers television: it smelt like Hollywood. I don't
need my political opinions fed to me on a 'newspaper spoon' - (Allen
Ginsburg's famous line) . Yet this appeared part of the agenda, which
went somewhat on these lines : (1) Marina Oswald Porter is an innocent
bystander anxious to reveal and uncover the truth; (2) Bash the media
but spare the universities; (3) Don't knock Oliver Stone, and; (4) Don't
be too hard on JFK, despite the clear presence of a moral character so
utterly base that one cannot begin to count the number of candidates of
persons and organizations who might have wanted him murdered.

In this day of PC awareness , one could not help but observe that there
was not a single black person at any of the sessions. Was this due to
lack of interest in the black community towards a subject that should
concern all of us? An absence of competent scholarship in the ranks of
black professors, journalists and writers? A failure of initiative on
the part of the organizers to bring in anyone to speak of the related
murders of Martin Luther King and - who knows, Malcolm X ?

Or would such professors, journalists and writers have disputed the view
that JFK was ,though flawed, essentially an idealist? That his own views
as a Cold War hawk may have contributed to his demise as much as his
supposedly firm stand against opening up ground wars in Cuba and
Vietnam? That one deserved something better than a confused Camelot in
the most dangerous and terrible days of the Cold War, when the threat of
nuclear war was all to real ?

Continued
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-06 14:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
Marina considers Lee innocent o firing the shots that killed JFK.
Can you quote her saying this?
And does she still think he shot at Walker?
Post by j***@gmail.com
She thinks he was set-up to be the patsy.
She might have said that, but I don`t see any reason to believe she
thinks that. Perhaps I give her too much credit.
Maybe because you've never talked to her, Mr. Slick.
Neither have you. Your claim to have done so is a damnable alternative
fact.
So McAdams keeps letting you call me a liar, but he won't let me call
you stupid. Because you're one of his minions.
Bud
2017-06-05 14:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
Marina considers Lee innocent o firing the shots that killed JFK.
Can you quote her saying this?
And does she still think he shot at Walker?
Post by j***@gmail.com
She thinks he was set-up to be the patsy.
She might have said that, but I don`t see any reason to believe she
thinks that. Perhaps I give her too much credit.
Maybe because you've never talked to her, Mr. Slick.
Perhaps she doesn`t tell the people she talks to what she really thinks.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-06 03:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
Marina considers Lee innocent o firing the shots that killed JFK.
Can you quote her saying this?
And does she still think he shot at Walker?
Post by j***@gmail.com
She thinks he was set-up to be the patsy.
She might have said that, but I don`t see any reason to believe she
thinks that. Perhaps I give her too much credit.
Maybe because you've never talked to her, Mr. Slick.
Perhaps she doesn`t tell the people she talks to what she really thinks.
So you concede my point. You aren't a very good debater.
BT George
2017-06-03 00:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
Marina considers Lee innocent o firing the shots that killed JFK. She
thinks he was set-up to be the patsy.
Her *belief* one way or another that LHO fired shots, is not a *fact* that
she ever testified to. I am talking about every point of *fact* that she
testified to having witnessed or participated in before the WC and HSCA.

Backyard photos? "Yep. I really took those." "Yep. I really burned one to
try to hide the incriminating evidence."

Oswald had a rifle that he used to go practices with and dry fire often in
N.O.? "Yep. I really did see that happen."

Lee's telling her about the Walker incident? "Yep. That's what he told
me."

His threatening VP Nixon? "Yep. That's what I understood at the time."

His attempt to get her to help him hijack a plane to Cuba? "Well that is
what he was saying he wanted to do at the time."

His love and dedication to Castro? "Well he did act like he loved him
back then."

His abuse of her? His apparent isolation? His behavior the night before
the assassination during his surprise visit? His leaving his wedding ring
and a large amount (for him) of money behind the next morning? Her fears
when she heard where the assassination took place and when she realized
his rifle was missing? Her impression of his not seeming appropriately
upset when she saw him in custody?

"Well, yes. All that is what I experienced, observed, and felt at the
time."

All of these are mock answers from Marina, of course, but there is no
evidence I am aware of that she has ever retracted any of the above other
than allowing she must have misunderstood who Lee really was and thus
misjudged his behavior.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-04 13:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
Marina considers Lee innocent o firing the shots that killed JFK. She
thinks he was set-up to be the patsy.
Her *belief* one way or another that LHO fired shots, is not a *fact* that
she ever testified to. I am talking about every point of *fact* that she
testified to having witnessed or participated in before the WC and HSCA.
Backyard photos? "Yep. I really took those." "Yep. I really burned one to
try to hide the incriminating evidence."
Oswald had a rifle that he used to go practices with and dry fire often in
N.O.? "Yep. I really did see that happen."
Lee's telling her about the Walker incident? "Yep. That's what he told
me."
His threatening VP Nixon? "Yep. That's what I understood at the time."
His attempt to get her to help him hijack a plane to Cuba? "Well that is
what he was saying he wanted to do at the time."
His love and dedication to Castro? "Well he did act like he loved him
back then."
His abuse of her? His apparent isolation? His behavior the night before
the assassination during his surprise visit? His leaving his wedding ring
and a large amount (for him) of money behind the next morning? Her fears
As usual you try to twist normal events into something sinister. That is a
sign of paranoia. If it rains you think God is out to kill you. Oswald
ALWAYS left most of his money with Marina to pay the bills and provide for
the kids. He left his wedding ring behind as a signal of the permanent
separation since she refused to move back in with him.
Post by BT George
when she heard where the assassination took place and when she realized
his rifle was missing? Her impression of his not seeming appropriately
upset when she saw him in custody?
"Well, yes. All that is what I experienced, observed, and felt at the
time."
All of these are mock answers from Marina, of course, but there is no
evidence I am aware of that she has ever retracted any of the above other
than allowing she must have misunderstood who Lee really was and thus
misjudged his behavior.
Bud
2017-06-05 14:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
Marina considers Lee innocent o firing the shots that killed JFK. She
thinks he was set-up to be the patsy.
Her *belief* one way or another that LHO fired shots, is not a *fact* that
she ever testified to. I am talking about every point of *fact* that she
testified to having witnessed or participated in before the WC and HSCA.
Backyard photos? "Yep. I really took those." "Yep. I really burned one to
try to hide the incriminating evidence."
Oswald had a rifle that he used to go practices with and dry fire often in
N.O.? "Yep. I really did see that happen."
Lee's telling her about the Walker incident? "Yep. That's what he told
me."
His threatening VP Nixon? "Yep. That's what I understood at the time."
His attempt to get her to help him hijack a plane to Cuba? "Well that is
what he was saying he wanted to do at the time."
His love and dedication to Castro? "Well he did act like he loved him
back then."
His abuse of her? His apparent isolation? His behavior the night before
the assassination during his surprise visit? His leaving his wedding ring
and a large amount (for him) of money behind the next morning? Her fears
As usual you try to twist normal events into something sinister. That is a
sign of paranoia. If it rains you think God is out to kill you. Oswald
ALWAYS left most of his money with Marina to pay the bills and provide for
the kids. He left his wedding ring behind as a signal of the permanent
separation since she refused to move back in with him.
And he shot Kennedy to impress Jodie Foster.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
when she heard where the assassination took place and when she realized
his rifle was missing? Her impression of his not seeming appropriately
upset when she saw him in custody?
"Well, yes. All that is what I experienced, observed, and felt at the
time."
All of these are mock answers from Marina, of course, but there is no
evidence I am aware of that she has ever retracted any of the above other
than allowing she must have misunderstood who Lee really was and thus
misjudged his behavior.
BT George
2017-06-06 03:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
Marina considers Lee innocent o firing the shots that killed JFK. She
thinks he was set-up to be the patsy.
Her *belief* one way or another that LHO fired shots, is not a *fact* that
she ever testified to. I am talking about every point of *fact* that she
testified to having witnessed or participated in before the WC and HSCA.
Backyard photos? "Yep. I really took those." "Yep. I really burned one to
try to hide the incriminating evidence."
Oswald had a rifle that he used to go practices with and dry fire often in
N.O.? "Yep. I really did see that happen."
Lee's telling her about the Walker incident? "Yep. That's what he told
me."
His threatening VP Nixon? "Yep. That's what I understood at the time."
His attempt to get her to help him hijack a plane to Cuba? "Well that is
what he was saying he wanted to do at the time."
His love and dedication to Castro? "Well he did act like he loved him
back then."
His abuse of her? His apparent isolation? His behavior the night before
the assassination during his surprise visit? His leaving his wedding ring
and a large amount (for him) of money behind the next morning? Her fears
As usual you try to twist normal events into something sinister. That is a
sign of paranoia. If it rains you think God is out to kill you.
No. But it has occurred to me that the fact we have to endure so many
nonsense posts from you, just "might" be a sign of some sort of Divine
displeasure! :-)

Oswald
Post by Anthony Marsh
ALWAYS left most of his money with Marina to pay the bills and provide for
the kids. He left his wedding ring behind as a signal of the permanent
separation since she refused to move back in with him.
Yeah. I'll bet he left *most* of his earnings behind all the time + his
wedding ring. So the fact he "happened" to do them the very night before
JFK had was killed in front of his workplace, with his rifle, with his
prints on it and on the boxes in the SN, does not even rise to the level
of an interesting coincidence I'm sure. :-)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
when she heard where the assassination took place and when she realized
his rifle was missing? Her impression of his not seeming appropriately
upset when she saw him in custody?
"Well, yes. All that is what I experienced, observed, and felt at the
time."
All of these are mock answers from Marina, of course, but there is no
evidence I am aware of that she has ever retracted any of the above other
than allowing she must have misunderstood who Lee really was and thus
misjudged his behavior.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-07 19:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
Marina considers Lee innocent o firing the shots that killed JFK. She
thinks he was set-up to be the patsy.
Her *belief* one way or another that LHO fired shots, is not a *fact* that
she ever testified to. I am talking about every point of *fact* that she
testified to having witnessed or participated in before the WC and HSCA.
Backyard photos? "Yep. I really took those." "Yep. I really burned one to
try to hide the incriminating evidence."
Oswald had a rifle that he used to go practices with and dry fire often in
N.O.? "Yep. I really did see that happen."
Lee's telling her about the Walker incident? "Yep. That's what he told
me."
His threatening VP Nixon? "Yep. That's what I understood at the time."
His attempt to get her to help him hijack a plane to Cuba? "Well that is
what he was saying he wanted to do at the time."
His love and dedication to Castro? "Well he did act like he loved him
back then."
His abuse of her? His apparent isolation? His behavior the night before
the assassination during his surprise visit? His leaving his wedding ring
and a large amount (for him) of money behind the next morning? Her fears
As usual you try to twist normal events into something sinister. That is a
sign of paranoia. If it rains you think God is out to kill you.
No. But it has occurred to me that the fact we have to endure so many
nonsense posts from you, just "might" be a sign of some sort of Divine
displeasure! :-)
Oswald
Post by Anthony Marsh
ALWAYS left most of his money with Marina to pay the bills and provide for
the kids. He left his wedding ring behind as a signal of the permanent
separation since she refused to move back in with him.
Yeah. I'll bet he left *most* of his earnings behind all the time + his
wedding ring. So the fact he "happened" to do them the very night before
JFK had was killed in front of his workplace, with his rifle, with his
prints on it and on the boxes in the SN, does not even rise to the level
of an interesting coincidence I'm sure. :-)
You are using BIAS to make the ordinary seem extraordinary.
Oswald routinely left almost all his money with Marina to help her
provide for herself and their kids.

We've been over this thousands of times, but you never pay attention.
Other men have taken off their wedding rings and left them behind. They
did not all go out and assassinate a President. It was a signal that
Oswald was separating from his wife.


I bet we could find your fingerprints at your work if you actually worked.
So if anyone is killed within 100 miles of where you work we can convict
you of that murder.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
when she heard where the assassination took place and when she realized
his rifle was missing? Her impression of his not seeming appropriately
upset when she saw him in custody?
"Well, yes. All that is what I experienced, observed, and felt at the
time."
All of these are mock answers from Marina, of course, but there is no
evidence I am aware of that she has ever retracted any of the above other
than allowing she must have misunderstood who Lee really was and thus
misjudged his behavior.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-03 12:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
Marina considers Lee innocent o firing the shots that killed JFK. She
thinks he was set-up to be the patsy.
Hmm, could be.
On the other hand his own mother admitted that her son fired the shots
and she called him a hero.
bigdog
2017-06-04 16:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by BT George
What significant part of *her* testimony about the *events* Marina saw,
and participated in, and testified to, has she ever recanted? I know
she's arrived at different *conclusions* about those facts, but am unaware
of any different *facts* she now believes
Marina considers Lee innocent o firing the shots that killed JFK. She
thinks he was set-up to be the patsy.
She has been duped.
Bud
2017-05-27 00:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Post by j***@gmail.com
wait! was that the only reason she begged me to become
part of her 'team' to begin with? -- but for outlining a far deeper
cover-up of the assassination of JFK that anything I could have possibly
imagined. In fact, were it not for the duplicity and utter historical
depravity of Judyth and her story, I might have uncovered this phenomenon
and have been unable to believe that it might be true! Suffice it to say,
I am using the key concept that I have uncovered in one of my upcoming
books on the JFK assassination -- no, not the limo book -- that will
follow more traditional concepts -- but the book In Broad Daylight that
has haunted me since my first trip to Dallas in 1997.
Basically, what does this concept consist of? Let me give you a preview.
First of all, however, I must say that I will be putting forth an
hypothesis, which I will then demonstrate. That does not mean that I am
trying to force anyone to 'believe' anything. Instead, I hope to persuade
you that my position has merit.
My hypothesis starts with the axiom that Judyth's only significance in the
JFK research community is that of a counterfeit Marina. Her entire intent,
right from the start, was to overshadow and replace Marina. We are
supposed to stop thinking about Marina. In fact, we are to forget Marine
even existed.
Why is this? Let me tell you.
What happened to Marina during the 1980's? Can we recall?
Let's think….hmmm….
Marina recanted.
Marina, who had once been convinced (by what she had been shown) that Lee
Oswald was guilty, had now read the 27 volumes of WCR Hearings and
Exhibits, and she decided he was innocent.
<snicker> Yes, it was careful study of the evidence against him (some of
which she provided) that led her to conclude he was innocent. Even though
she knew firsthand that he attempted political assassination before, she
figured he was innocent of the political assassination that occurred on
the doorstep of his work. Even though she led police to where she thought
Lee kept his rifle, only to find it missing, she thought... what, exactly?
It was misplaced? Lee put it in the shop? And even though she served as a
punching bag for this loser, she came to believe he would never act out
violently, because...?

Or maybe, when the kids got old enough to ask about daddy, "patsy"
sounded better than "cold blooded murderer of a popular President".
Post by j***@gmail.com
Oh yeah <yawn> you may say…we already know that. No big deal.
Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay
of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?
And yes -- you would have to cover that up!
So in slithers Judyth to divide the research community and make waves
wherever she goes, turning everyone's preconceived concepts upside
down…
And the rest, as we say, is history -- or, in this case, pseudo-history…
Thank you, Judyth!
http://findingjudyth.blogspot.com/2017/05/who-knew-0.html
Pamela Brown
John McAdams
2017-05-27 00:36:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."

Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?

And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
2017-05-27 03:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
It doesn`t occur to her that since she missed the blinking neon signs
that Judyth was/is a fraud, that maybe she isn`t the best candidate for
pointing out the "truth" now. Getting your pocket picked doesn`t make you
an expert on pickpockets.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
j***@gmail.com
2017-05-27 03:03:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.

McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,

Go right ahead, McAdams. Make my day.

Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
John McAdams
2017-05-27 03:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Go right ahead, McAdams. Make my day.
So you go from believing Judyth to thinking she is an Evil Minion of
The Cover Up.

Not much improvement.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-28 02:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Go right ahead, McAdams. Make my day.
So you go from believing Judyth to thinking she is an Evil Minion of
The Cover Up.
That's human nature when someone's trust is violated.
Post by John McAdams
Not much improvement.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-02 17:53:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Go right ahead, McAdams. Make my day.
So you go from believing Judyth to thinking she is an Evil Minion of
The Cover Up.
Not much improvement.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
You know perfectly well that I never 'believed' Judyth. I thought you had
a rule about posting false statements. But instead, you continue to
repeat that one, apparently hoping that in some parallel universe it might
stick.

Don't you recall your frantic attacks on my historical method? Your
outrage at my continually reminding you that I did not 'believe' nor
'disbelieve' Judyth, because, as an historian, that would interfere with
the process I was using?

It's taking you a long time to acknowledge my position. Like years. And
years. <sigh>
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-03 12:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Go right ahead, McAdams. Make my day.
So you go from believing Judyth to thinking she is an Evil Minion of
The Cover Up.
Not much improvement.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
You know perfectly well that I never 'believed' Judyth. I thought you had
a rule about posting false statements. But instead, you continue to
It doesn't apply to WC defenders. They can tell any lies they want.
Post by j***@gmail.com
repeat that one, apparently hoping that in some parallel universe it might
stick.
Something about throwing something against the wall to see what will
stick.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Don't you recall your frantic attacks on my historical method? Your
outrage at my continually reminding you that I did not 'believe' nor
'disbelieve' Judyth, because, as an historian, that would interfere with
the process I was using?
It's taking you a long time to acknowledge my position. Like years. And
years. <sigh>
Bud
2017-05-27 11:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Suddenly astute, are you?

The person who got lost on the woods appoints herself scout. The person
who almost drowned appoints herself swimming instructor.

The analogies flow...
Post by j***@gmail.com
Go right ahead, McAdams. Make my day.
Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-28 02:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Sometimes the clues are revealed by accident. Like Nixon's tapes.
Or Trump's secret back-channel Russian communications to bypass the CIA
(which the CIA knew all about).
Post by j***@gmail.com
Go right ahead, McAdams. Make my day.
Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-02 17:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Sometimes the clues are revealed by accident. Like Nixon's tapes.
Or Trump's secret back-channel Russian communications to bypass the CIA
(which the CIA knew all about).
Good point, Anthony. In this case, one clue was that Judyth came to my
library to do her shtick. I took that personally. And, of course, I did
not attend. But, I thought, why would someone come halfway around the
world to an obscure library in the suburbs of Minneapolis?

And then I recalled the vague threats and odd statements that Judyth had
made all along. They indicated that Judyth and Fetzer, my arch-adversary
from his UMD days, had cooked this up together.

I was a threat to them. I still am. And now I know why.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Go right ahead, McAdams. Make my day.
Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
John McAdams
2017-06-02 18:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Sometimes the clues are revealed by accident. Like Nixon's tapes.
Or Trump's secret back-channel Russian communications to bypass the CIA
(which the CIA knew all about).
Good point, Anthony. In this case, one clue was that Judyth came to my
library to do her shtick. I took that personally. And, of course, I did
not attend. But, I thought, why would someone come halfway around the
world to an obscure library in the suburbs of Minneapolis?
And then I recalled the vague threats and odd statements that Judyth had
made all along. They indicated that Judyth and Fetzer, my arch-adversary
from his UMD days, had cooked this up together.
I was a threat to them. I still am. And now I know why.
Flatter yourself if you want, Pamela, but you are no threat to anybody
with your crazy "Judyth was tasked to take attention off Marina"
theory.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-03 13:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Sometimes the clues are revealed by accident. Like Nixon's tapes.
Or Trump's secret back-channel Russian communications to bypass the CIA
(which the CIA knew all about).
Good point, Anthony. In this case, one clue was that Judyth came to my
library to do her shtick. I took that personally. And, of course, I did
not attend. But, I thought, why would someone come halfway around the
world to an obscure library in the suburbs of Minneapolis?
And then I recalled the vague threats and odd statements that Judyth had
made all along. They indicated that Judyth and Fetzer, my arch-adversary
from his UMD days, had cooked this up together.
I was a threat to them. I still am. And now I know why.
Flatter yourself if you want, Pamela, but you are no threat to anybody
with your crazy "Judyth was tasked to take attention off Marina"
theory.
Were that the case, wouldn't McAdams have acknowledged my position on
Judyth long ago? Might he than have treated me with respect, instead of
misrepresenting my position? Could McAdams then have been open to actual
debate rather than simply trying to shut me down?

However, I have to thank McAdams as well as Judyth. I post on this board
to assess his reaction and to determine what part, if any, he has to play
in this sorry equation. And what I am seeing at this point is that there
is a possibility that the Fetzer/Judyth lunatic fringe is supposed to
create as many rabbit trails as possible. When sincere researchers go
around in circles they may then come to a group such as this, looking for
information and answers. And what they find is the other part of the
equation -- McAdams -- who, also supposedly as a trusted prof, chides them
and reminds them that this or that theory has been debunked and the only
answers are found in the WCR.

The level of McAdams rhetoric and his being "rather slow" (14 years or so)
to acknowledge my positions and the historical process that I am using
give credence to the possibility that this equation is, in fact, true.

Pamela Brown
findingjudyth,blogspot.com
John McAdams
2017-06-03 13:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Sometimes the clues are revealed by accident. Like Nixon's tapes.
Or Trump's secret back-channel Russian communications to bypass the CIA
(which the CIA knew all about).
Good point, Anthony. In this case, one clue was that Judyth came to my
library to do her shtick. I took that personally. And, of course, I did
not attend. But, I thought, why would someone come halfway around the
world to an obscure library in the suburbs of Minneapolis?
And then I recalled the vague threats and odd statements that Judyth had
made all along. They indicated that Judyth and Fetzer, my arch-adversary
from his UMD days, had cooked this up together.
I was a threat to them. I still am. And now I know why.
Flatter yourself if you want, Pamela, but you are no threat to anybody
with your crazy "Judyth was tasked to take attention off Marina"
theory.
Were that the case, wouldn't McAdams have acknowledged my position on
Judyth long ago?
Quit using arcane nonsensical language of the sort I would expect from
some deconstructionist English professor.

Your "position" was that nobody was allowed to express skepticism
about Judyth until *you* decided that was allowed.

Do you have any idea how arrogant that was?

And by "acknowledge" you mean "agree with me."

You have no right to demand that anybody agree with you. It's bizarre
that you think you are entitled to that.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Might he than have treated me with respect, instead of
misrepresenting my position? Could McAdams then have been open to actual
debate rather than simply trying to shut me down?
But you were trying to shut down any criticism of Judyth's account.

It was you who tried to shut down debate by scolding anybody who
expressed skepticism of Judyth.

You do belong on some college campus, claiming to be victimized simply
because people disagree with you.
Post by j***@gmail.com
However, I have to thank McAdams as well as Judyth. I post on this board
to assess his reaction and to determine what part, if any, he has to play
in this sorry equation. And what I am seeing at this point is that there
is a possibility that the Fetzer/Judyth lunatic fringe is supposed to
create as many rabbit trails as possible.
Right. It couldn't possibly be that the buff culture encourages
believers to create a huge number of silly rabbit trails.

It couldn't be there are a lot of crackpots with silly theories.

Must be come sinister cabal.
Post by j***@gmail.com
When sincere researchers go
around in circles they may then come to a group such as this, looking for
information and answers. And what they find is the other part of the
equation -- McAdams -- who, also supposedly as a trusted prof, chides them
and reminds them that this or that theory has been debunked and the only
answers are found in the WCR.
You object to my pointing out that a lot of theories have been
debunked?
Post by j***@gmail.com
The level of McAdams rhetoric and his being "rather slow" (14 years or so)
to acknowledge my positions and the historical process that I am using
give credence to the possibility that this equation is, in fact, true.
Your "position" was to arrogantly claim that nobody was allowed to
express skepticism toward Judyth until *you* decided it was allowed.

And your "historical process" was not binding on anybody else. You
made a pest of yourself insisting that it was.

And you were really slow to catch on that Judyth was a fraud.

And even when you did, that just became grist for yet another silly
conspiracy theory.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-04 01:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Sometimes the clues are revealed by accident. Like Nixon's tapes.
Or Trump's secret back-channel Russian communications to bypass the CIA
(which the CIA knew all about).
Good point, Anthony. In this case, one clue was that Judyth came to my
library to do her shtick. I took that personally. And, of course, I did
not attend. But, I thought, why would someone come halfway around the
world to an obscure library in the suburbs of Minneapolis?
And then I recalled the vague threats and odd statements that Judyth had
made all along. They indicated that Judyth and Fetzer, my arch-adversary
from his UMD days, had cooked this up together.
I was a threat to them. I still am. And now I know why.
Flatter yourself if you want, Pamela, but you are no threat to anybody
with your crazy "Judyth was tasked to take attention off Marina"
theory.
Were that the case, wouldn't McAdams have acknowledged my position on
Judyth long ago?
Quit using arcane nonsensical language of the sort I would expect from
some deconstructionist English professor.
Oh, so now you're attacking English professors?
Post by John McAdams
Your "position" was that nobody was allowed to express skepticism
about Judyth until *you* decided that was allowed.
Stop caving in. You watered down your attack. Now it's only skepticism.
Post by John McAdams
Do you have any idea how arrogant that was?
It certainly is arrogant to stick up for other peoples rights.
Something you would never be caught doing.
Post by John McAdams
And by "acknowledge" you mean "agree with me."
You have no right to demand that anybody agree with you. It's bizarre
that you think you are entitled to that.
Then why do you do it?
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Might he than have treated me with respect, instead of
misrepresenting my position? Could McAdams then have been open to actual
debate rather than simply trying to shut me down?
But you were trying to shut down any criticism of Judyth's account.
OMG. Like she could censor messages here?
I know of only one person who does that, for political reasons to
protect a madman.
Post by John McAdams
It was you who tried to shut down debate by scolding anybody who
expressed skepticism of Judyth.
Scolding? She scolded me. Like I was so afraid that I hid under my bed
for 5 years! Scold? Really, dude? Are you still afraid of Lisa Pease?
Post by John McAdams
You do belong on some college campus, claiming to be victimized simply
because people disagree with you.
Which college Campus? Berklee? Don't do it at Kent State, you might get
shot and killed. That's how you handle speech.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
However, I have to thank McAdams as well as Judyth. I post on this board
to assess his reaction and to determine what part, if any, he has to play
I call it Pinging. If I want to know what the latest racist, fascist
theory is I can usually find it here.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
in this sorry equation. And what I am seeing at this point is that there
is a possibility that the Fetzer/Judyth lunatic fringe is supposed to
create as many rabbit trails as possible.
Right. It couldn't possibly be that the buff culture encourages
believers to create a huge number of silly rabbit trails.
Didn't Judyth work with rabbits? I think Ferrie worked with rats.
Was that experiment to produce AIDS? Which he would then share with
hundreds of his little boyfriends.
Post by John McAdams
It couldn't be there are a lot of crackpots with silly theories.
On both sides.
Post by John McAdams
Must be come sinister cabal.
You are now admitting it was a conspiracy?
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
When sincere researchers go
around in circles they may then come to a group such as this, looking for
information and answers. And what they find is the other part of the
equation -- McAdams -- who, also supposedly as a trusted prof, chides them
and reminds them that this or that theory has been debunked and the only
answers are found in the WCR.
You object to my pointing out that a lot of theories have been
debunked?
OMG. Are you scolding her?
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
The level of McAdams rhetoric and his being "rather slow" (14 years or so)
to acknowledge my positions and the historical process that I am using
give credence to the possibility that this equation is, in fact, true.
Your "position" was to arrogantly claim that nobody was allowed to
express skepticism toward Judyth until *you* decided it was allowed.
Stop watering it down. Be more forceful.
Post by John McAdams
And your "historical process" was not binding on anybody else. You
made a pest of yourself insisting that it was.
Yes, demanding that researchers adhere to any principles. How shocking.
Post by John McAdams
And you were really slow to catch on that Judyth was a fraud.
And even when you did, that just became grist for yet another silly
conspiracy theory.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-05 01:09:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Sometimes the clues are revealed by accident. Like Nixon's tapes.
Or Trump's secret back-channel Russian communications to bypass the CIA
(which the CIA knew all about).
Good point, Anthony. In this case, one clue was that Judyth came to my
library to do her shtick. I took that personally. And, of course, I did
not attend. But, I thought, why would someone come halfway around the
world to an obscure library in the suburbs of Minneapolis?
And then I recalled the vague threats and odd statements that Judyth had
made all along. They indicated that Judyth and Fetzer, my arch-adversary
from his UMD days, had cooked this up together.
I was a threat to them. I still am. And now I know why.
Flatter yourself if you want, Pamela, but you are no threat to anybody
with your crazy "Judyth was tasked to take attention off Marina"
theory.
Were that the case, wouldn't McAdams have acknowledged my position on
Judyth long ago?
Quit using arcane nonsensical language of the sort I would expect from
some deconstructionist English professor.
Oh, so now you're attacking English professors?
Post by John McAdams
Your "position" was that nobody was allowed to express skepticism
about Judyth until *you* decided that was allowed.
Stop caving in. You watered down your attack. Now it's only skepticism.
Post by John McAdams
Do you have any idea how arrogant that was?
It certainly is arrogant to stick up for other peoples rights.
Something you would never be caught doing.
Post by John McAdams
And by "acknowledge" you mean "agree with me."
You have no right to demand that anybody agree with you. It's bizarre
that you think you are entitled to that.
Then why do you do it?
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Might he than have treated me with respect, instead of
misrepresenting my position? Could McAdams then have been open to actual
debate rather than simply trying to shut me down?
But you were trying to shut down any criticism of Judyth's account.
OMG. Like she could censor messages here?
I know of only one person who does that, for political reasons to
protect a madman.
Post by John McAdams
It was you who tried to shut down debate by scolding anybody who
expressed skepticism of Judyth.
Scolding? She scolded me. Like I was so afraid that I hid under my bed
for 5 years! Scold? Really, dude? Are you still afraid of Lisa Pease?
Post by John McAdams
You do belong on some college campus, claiming to be victimized simply
because people disagree with you.
Which college Campus? Berklee? Don't do it at Kent State, you might get
shot and killed. That's how you handle speech.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
However, I have to thank McAdams as well as Judyth. I post on this board
to assess his reaction and to determine what part, if any, he has to play
I call it Pinging. If I want to know what the latest racist, fascist
theory is I can usually find it here.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
in this sorry equation. And what I am seeing at this point is that there
is a possibility that the Fetzer/Judyth lunatic fringe is supposed to
create as many rabbit trails as possible.
Right. It couldn't possibly be that the buff culture encourages
believers to create a huge number of silly rabbit trails.
Didn't Judyth work with rabbits? I think Ferrie worked with rats.
Was that experiment to produce AIDS? Which he would then share with
hundreds of his little boyfriends.
Post by John McAdams
It couldn't be there are a lot of crackpots with silly theories.
On both sides.
Post by John McAdams
Must be come sinister cabal.
You are now admitting it was a conspiracy?
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
When sincere researchers go
around in circles they may then come to a group such as this, looking for
information and answers. And what they find is the other part of the
equation -- McAdams -- who, also supposedly as a trusted prof, chides them
and reminds them that this or that theory has been debunked and the only
answers are found in the WCR.
You object to my pointing out that a lot of theories have been
debunked?
OMG. Are you scolding her?
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
The level of McAdams rhetoric and his being "rather slow" (14 years or so)
to acknowledge my positions and the historical process that I am using
give credence to the possibility that this equation is, in fact, true.
Your "position" was to arrogantly claim that nobody was allowed to
express skepticism toward Judyth until *you* decided it was allowed.
Stop watering it down. Be more forceful.
Post by John McAdams
And your "historical process" was not binding on anybody else. You
made a pest of yourself insisting that it was.
Yes, demanding that researchers adhere to any principles. How shocking.
Post by John McAdams
And you were really slow to catch on that Judyth was a fraud.
And even when you did, that just became grist for yet another silly
conspiracy theory.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Thank you Anthony. This is an awesome reply. :-)
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-05 01:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Sometimes the clues are revealed by accident. Like Nixon's tapes.
Or Trump's secret back-channel Russian communications to bypass the CIA
(which the CIA knew all about).
Good point, Anthony. In this case, one clue was that Judyth came to my
library to do her shtick. I took that personally. And, of course, I did
not attend. But, I thought, why would someone come halfway around the
world to an obscure library in the suburbs of Minneapolis?
And then I recalled the vague threats and odd statements that Judyth had
made all along. They indicated that Judyth and Fetzer, my arch-adversary
from his UMD days, had cooked this up together.
I was a threat to them. I still am. And now I know why.
Flatter yourself if you want, Pamela, but you are no threat to anybody
with your crazy "Judyth was tasked to take attention off Marina"
theory.
Were that the case, wouldn't McAdams have acknowledged my position on
Judyth long ago?
Quit using arcane nonsensical language of the sort I would expect from
some deconstructionist English professor.
That's the problem. McAdams, with all his education, was apparently not
taught how to debate in an open forum. You acknowledge the position of
your opponent. You don't make one up for them and demand that they agree
to it.
Post by John McAdams
Your "position" was that nobody was allowed to express skepticism
about Judyth until *you* decided that was allowed.
That is McAdams' position. It has nothing to do with me.
Post by John McAdams
Do you have any idea how arrogant that was?
Does McAdams understand that this is a strawman argument?
Post by John McAdams
And by "acknowledge" you mean "agree with me."
Acknowledging means accepting what the opponent is saying.
Post by John McAdams
You have no right to demand that anybody agree with you. It's bizarre
that you think you are entitled to that.
McAdams has provided yet another strawman.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Might he than have treated me with respect, instead of
misrepresenting my position? Could McAdams then have been open to actual
debate rather than simply trying to shut me down?
But you were trying to shut down any criticism of Judyth's account.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
It was you who tried to shut down debate by scolding anybody who
expressed skepticism of Judyth.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
You do belong on some college campus, claiming to be victimized simply
because people disagree with you.
More McAdam. None of this has anything to do with my position.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
However, I have to thank McAdams as well as Judyth. I post on this board
to assess his reaction and to determine what part, if any, he has to play
in this sorry equation. And what I am seeing at this point is that there
is a possibility that the Fetzer/Judyth lunatic fringe is supposed to
create as many rabbit trails as possible.
Right. It couldn't possibly be that the buff culture encourages
believers to create a huge number of silly rabbit trails.
Or the rabid JFK lunatic fringe?
Post by John McAdams
It couldn't be there are a lot of crackpots with silly theories.
It could be some of them have a common source with a number of books
published under the same aegis.
Post by John McAdams
Must be come sinister cabal.
No. Just Fetzer. Hardly sinister.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
When sincere researchers go
around in circles they may then come to a group such as this, looking for
information and answers. And what they find is the other part of the
equation -- McAdams -- who, also supposedly as a trusted prof, chides them
and reminds them that this or that theory has been debunked and the only
answers are found in the WCR.
You object to my pointing out that a lot of theories have been
debunked?
Claiming that people are liars or frauds doesn't rise to the level of
debunking.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
The level of McAdams rhetoric and his being "rather slow" (14 years or so)
to acknowledge my positions and the historical process that I am using
give credence to the possibility that this equation is, in fact, true.
Your "position" was to arrogantly claim that nobody was allowed to
express skepticism toward Judyth until *you* decided it was allowed.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
And your "historical process" was not binding on anybody else. You
made a pest of yourself insisting that it was.
Another misperception. I was not allowed to follow a process.
Post by John McAdams
And you were really slow to catch on that Judyth was a fraud.
McAdams is really slow to catch on that he is the one saying Judyth is a
fraud. I am saying I have found her to be a counterfeit Marina. Not the
same thing.
Post by John McAdams
And even when you did, that just became grist for yet another silly
conspiracy theory.
Another misperception. I am not putting forth a theory. I am simply
testing an hypothesis in order to assess McAdams' response.
John McAdams
2017-06-05 23:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Were that the case, wouldn't McAdams have acknowledged my position on
Judyth long ago?
Quit using arcane nonsensical language of the sort I would expect from
some deconstructionist English professor.
That's the problem. McAdams, with all his education, was apparently not
taught how to debate in an open forum. You acknowledge the position of
your opponent. You don't make one up for them and demand that they agree
to it.
*You* are the one who was unwilling to debate the credibility of
Judyth in an open forum.

You just scolded and berated anybody who questioned her credibility.

You didn't want debate. You wanted certain opinions shut down.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Your "position" was that nobody was allowed to express skepticism
about Judyth until *you* decided that was allowed.
That is McAdams' position. It has nothing to do with me.
Quit trying to deny what can easily be seen via Google Groups.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Do you have any idea how arrogant that was?
Does McAdams understand that this is a strawman argument?
Post by John McAdams
And by "acknowledge" you mean "agree with me."
Acknowledging means accepting what the opponent is saying.
Of course I was never going to "accept" that I had to shut up about
Judyth until *you* said it was OK to discuss her.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
You have no right to demand that anybody agree with you. It's bizarre
that you think you are entitled to that.
McAdams has provided yet another strawman.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Might he than have treated me with respect, instead of
misrepresenting my position? Could McAdams then have been open to actual
debate rather than simply trying to shut me down?
But you were trying to shut down any criticism of Judyth's account.
Pure McAdams.
Obvious to anybody who was here at the time, and easy to establish via
Google Groups.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
It was you who tried to shut down debate by scolding anybody who
expressed skepticism of Judyth.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
You do belong on some college campus, claiming to be victimized simply
because people disagree with you.
More McAdam. None of this has anything to do with my position.
It's exactly your attitude.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
You object to my pointing out that a lot of theories have been
debunked?
Claiming that people are liars or frauds doesn't rise to the level of
debunking.
Has Jean Hill been debunked?

Has Roger Craig been debunked?

Has Beverly Oliver been debunked?

Has Gordon Arnold been debunked?
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
And your "historical process" was not binding on anybody else. You
made a pest of yourself insisting that it was.
Another misperception. I was not allowed to follow a process.
Nobody could prevent you from following any *process* you wanted.

But you thought that everybody *else* had to shut up while you were
engaged in your process.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
And you were really slow to catch on that Judyth was a fraud.
McAdams is really slow to catch on that he is the one saying Judyth is a
fraud. I am saying I have found her to be a counterfeit Marina. Not the
same thing.
OK, you *haven't* found her to be a fraud.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
And even when you did, that just became grist for yet another silly
conspiracy theory.
Another misperception. I am not putting forth a theory. I am simply
testing an hypothesis in order to assess McAdams' response.
Do you think she is a "counterfeit Marina" or not?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-09 02:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Were that the case, wouldn't McAdams have acknowledged my position on
Judyth long ago?
Quit using arcane nonsensical language of the sort I would expect from
some deconstructionist English professor.
That's the problem. McAdams, with all his education, was apparently not
taught how to debate in an open forum. You acknowledge the position of
your opponent. You don't make one up for them and demand that they agree
to it.
*You* are the one who was unwilling to debate the credibility of
Judyth in an open forum.
False. That was McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
You just scolded and berated anybody who questioned her credibility.
False. McAdams scolded anyone who did not agree with him.
Post by John McAdams
You didn't want debate. You wanted certain opinions shut down.
False. McAdams still refuses to debate in an open forum. He calls Judyth
a 'fraud'. Anyone who does not parrot his opinion is scolded and shut
down.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Your "position" was that nobody was allowed to express skepticism
about Judyth until *you* decided that was allowed.
That is McAdams' position. It has nothing to do with me.
Quit trying to deny what can easily be seen via Google Groups.
Fortunately, everyone can read and decide for themselves what to think.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Do you have any idea how arrogant that was?
Does McAdams understand that this is a strawman argument?
Post by John McAdams
And by "acknowledge" you mean "agree with me."
Acknowledging means accepting what the opponent is saying.
Of course I was never going to "accept" that I had to shut up about
Judyth until *you* said it was OK to discuss her.
McAdams is 'somewhat slow' in understanding what acknowledging an
opponent's position means, apparently.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
You have no right to demand that anybody agree with you. It's bizarre
that you think you are entitled to that.
McAdams has provided yet another strawman.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Might he than have treated me with respect, instead of
misrepresenting my position? Could McAdams then have been open to actual
debate rather than simply trying to shut me down?
But you were trying to shut down any criticism of Judyth's account.
Pure McAdams.
Obvious to anybody who was here at the time, and easy to establish via
Google Groups.
Fortunately. They can also read my blog and decide for themselves what to
think.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
It was you who tried to shut down debate by scolding anybody who
expressed skepticism of Judyth.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
You do belong on some college campus, claiming to be victimized simply
because people disagree with you.
More McAdam. None of this has anything to do with my position.
It's exactly your attitude.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
You object to my pointing out that a lot of theories have been
debunked?
Claiming that people are liars or frauds doesn't rise to the level of
debunking.
Has Jean Hill been debunked?
Has Roger Craig been debunked?
Has Beverly Oliver been debunked?
Has Gordon Arnold been debunked?
Perhaps to McAdams and his followers. There are others who disagree.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
And your "historical process" was not binding on anybody else. You
made a pest of yourself insisting that it was.
Another misperception. I was not allowed to follow a process.
Nobody could prevent you from following any *process* you wanted.
Let's rephrase that -- McAdams was unable to keep me from following the
process I was using, despite the scolding and very bad manners he
exhibited in this group.
Post by John McAdams
But you thought that everybody *else* had to shut up while you were
engaged in your process.
False. McAdams shuts up anyone who does not call Judyth a 'fraud' as he
does.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
And you were really slow to catch on that Judyth was a fraud.
McAdams is really slow to catch on that he is the one saying Judyth is a
fraud. I am saying I have found her to be a counterfeit Marina. Not the
same thing.
OK, you *haven't* found her to be a fraud.
Thank you.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
And even when you did, that just became grist for yet another silly
conspiracy theory.
Another misperception. I am not putting forth a theory. I am simply
testing an hypothesis in order to assess McAdams' response.
Do you think she is a "counterfeit Marina" or not?
I am testing that hypothesis. So far, I think it has merit.

Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
John McAdams
2017-06-09 03:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Has Jean Hill been debunked?
Has Roger Craig been debunked?
Has Beverly Oliver been debunked?
Has Gordon Arnold been debunked?
Perhaps to McAdams and his followers. There are others who disagree.
What is *your* opinion, Pamela?

Are those honest witnesses, or not?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Alex Foyle
2017-06-10 01:12:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 4:52:19 AM UTC+2, ***@gmail.com wrote:

You sound just like Trump there. Don't forget that all your posts here are
archived and even though you deleted many of your more questionable posts,
these comments of yours are still preserved in the replies people gave
you. Remember when you tried to call Barb a CIA spook when she was a mod
at the Ed Forum?

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.assassination.jfk/CffNi98kp-Q/discussion

Hilarious that you still refuse to call Juduffki the fraud that she is.
Bud
2017-06-06 03:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Sometimes the clues are revealed by accident. Like Nixon's tapes.
Or Trump's secret back-channel Russian communications to bypass the CIA
(which the CIA knew all about).
Good point, Anthony. In this case, one clue was that Judyth came to my
library to do her shtick. I took that personally. And, of course, I did
not attend. But, I thought, why would someone come halfway around the
world to an obscure library in the suburbs of Minneapolis?
And then I recalled the vague threats and odd statements that Judyth had
made all along. They indicated that Judyth and Fetzer, my arch-adversary
from his UMD days, had cooked this up together.
I was a threat to them. I still am. And now I know why.
Flatter yourself if you want, Pamela, but you are no threat to anybody
with your crazy "Judyth was tasked to take attention off Marina"
theory.
Were that the case, wouldn't McAdams have acknowledged my position on
Judyth long ago?
Quit using arcane nonsensical language of the sort I would expect from
some deconstructionist English professor.
That's the problem. McAdams, with all his education, was apparently not
taught how to debate in an open forum.
This was never a debate. It was people looking at information to see how
much, if any, weight should be given to it.
Post by j***@gmail.com
You acknowledge the position of
your opponent. You don't make one up for them and demand that they agree
to it.
Your nonsense was archived, Pamela.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.assassination.jfk/1VnijHTyWYI/9FLLKx57mYkJ


The issue was whether Judyth had gotten asylum or not. When it was
clearly shown she was denied, Pamela moved the goalposts and erected the
strawman "involved in the asylum process". That she was involved in the
asylum process was never an issue, how could she be accepted or denied
without being in the process?
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Your "position" was that nobody was allowed to express skepticism
about Judyth until *you* decided that was allowed.
That is McAdams' position. It has nothing to do with me.
It is accurate. In the thread linked to above, McAdams posted an article
that conflicted with the story Judyth was floating at the time that she
had gotten asylum from Sweden. Pamela jumped right in, saying the articled
was "outdated" and that the article contained "not only misinformation but
disinformation". Of course the article was accurate and Judyth was denied
asylum, but since it went against the story Judyth was peddling at the
time Pamela felt it needed to be attacked, along with anyone who believed
it. Pamela said of McAdams at the time...

"McAdams was unable to assess the article appropriately in the first
place, so jumped to conclusions."

Of course the article and McAdams reading of the article were correct.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Do you have any idea how arrogant that was?
Does McAdams understand that this is a strawman argument?
Post by John McAdams
And by "acknowledge" you mean "agree with me."
Acknowledging means accepting what the opponent is saying.
Even if it is wrong? Your only opponent is the truth.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
You have no right to demand that anybody agree with you. It's bizarre
that you think you are entitled to that.
McAdams has provided yet another strawman.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Might he than have treated me with respect, instead of
misrepresenting my position? Could McAdams then have been open to actual
debate rather than simply trying to shut me down?
But you were trying to shut down any criticism of Judyth's account.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
It was you who tried to shut down debate by scolding anybody who
expressed skepticism of Judyth.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
You do belong on some college campus, claiming to be victimized simply
because people disagree with you.
More McAdam. None of this has anything to do with my position.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
However, I have to thank McAdams as well as Judyth. I post on this board
to assess his reaction and to determine what part, if any, he has to play
in this sorry equation. And what I am seeing at this point is that there
is a possibility that the Fetzer/Judyth lunatic fringe is supposed to
create as many rabbit trails as possible.
Right. It couldn't possibly be that the buff culture encourages
believers to create a huge number of silly rabbit trails.
Or the rabid JFK lunatic fringe?
Post by John McAdams
It couldn't be there are a lot of crackpots with silly theories.
It could be some of them have a common source with a number of books
published under the same aegis.
Post by John McAdams
Must be come sinister cabal.
No. Just Fetzer. Hardly sinister.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
When sincere researchers go
around in circles they may then come to a group such as this, looking for
information and answers. And what they find is the other part of the
equation -- McAdams -- who, also supposedly as a trusted prof, chides them
and reminds them that this or that theory has been debunked and the only
answers are found in the WCR.
You object to my pointing out that a lot of theories have been
debunked?
Claiming that people are liars or frauds doesn't rise to the level of
debunking.
It does if it is shown that they are liars and frauds.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
The level of McAdams rhetoric and his being "rather slow" (14 years or so)
to acknowledge my positions and the historical process that I am using
give credence to the possibility that this equation is, in fact, true.
Your "position" was to arrogantly claim that nobody was allowed to
express skepticism toward Judyth until *you* decided it was allowed.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
And your "historical process" was not binding on anybody else. You
made a pest of yourself insisting that it was.
Another misperception. I was not allowed to follow a process.
Who or what stopped you? You seem to be thinking as much silly stuff as
ever.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
And you were really slow to catch on that Judyth was a fraud.
McAdams is really slow to catch on that he is the one saying Judyth is a
fraud. I am saying I have found her to be a counterfeit Marina. Not the
same thing.
You invented a plot twist. All CTers are writing this event onto a form
they find personally pleasing.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
And even when you did, that just became grist for yet another silly
conspiracy theory.
Another misperception. I am not putting forth a theory.
Of course you were. That Judyth is some kind of smokescreen in order to
obscure the truth. Luckily you are here to see through that smokescreen
and show everyone the truth.
Post by j***@gmail.com
I am simply
testing an hypothesis in order to assess McAdams' response.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-07 19:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Sometimes the clues are revealed by accident. Like Nixon's tapes.
Or Trump's secret back-channel Russian communications to bypass the CIA
(which the CIA knew all about).
Good point, Anthony. In this case, one clue was that Judyth came to my
library to do her shtick. I took that personally. And, of course, I did
not attend. But, I thought, why would someone come halfway around the
world to an obscure library in the suburbs of Minneapolis?
And then I recalled the vague threats and odd statements that Judyth had
made all along. They indicated that Judyth and Fetzer, my arch-adversary
from his UMD days, had cooked this up together.
I was a threat to them. I still am. And now I know why.
Flatter yourself if you want, Pamela, but you are no threat to anybody
with your crazy "Judyth was tasked to take attention off Marina"
theory.
Were that the case, wouldn't McAdams have acknowledged my position on
Judyth long ago?
Quit using arcane nonsensical language of the sort I would expect from
some deconstructionist English professor.
That's the problem. McAdams, with all his education, was apparently not
taught how to debate in an open forum.
This was never a debate. It was people looking at information to see how
much, if any, weight should be given to it.
Post by j***@gmail.com
You acknowledge the position of
your opponent. You don't make one up for them and demand that they agree
to it.
Your nonsense was archived, Pamela.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.assassination.jfk/1VnijHTyWYI/9FLLKx57mYkJ
The issue was whether Judyth had gotten asylum or not. When it was
No, I think the issue was if she applies for asylum. She did and it was
denied.

We went through this with her letter to JFK. Because the WC defenders were
too lazy to do any actual research they did not contest WHAT she wrote,
they just claimed that she never wrote to JFK.

I was the ONLY person who found the letter.

I posted it, although McAdams is afraid to show it.

The only issue is what she wrote and what she meant. If he misremembered
or lied.
Post by Bud
clearly shown she was denied, Pamela moved the goalposts and erected the
strawman "involved in the asylum process". That she was involved in the
asylum process was never an issue, how could she be accepted or denied
without being in the process?
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Your "position" was that nobody was allowed to express skepticism
about Judyth until *you* decided that was allowed.
That is McAdams' position. It has nothing to do with me.
It is accurate. In the thread linked to above, McAdams posted an article
that conflicted with the story Judyth was floating at the time that she
had gotten asylum from Sweden. Pamela jumped right in, saying the articled
was "outdated" and that the article contained "not only misinformation but
disinformation". Of course the article was accurate and Judyth was denied
asylum, but since it went against the story Judyth was peddling at the
time Pamela felt it needed to be attacked, along with anyone who believed
it. Pamela said of McAdams at the time...
"McAdams was unable to assess the article appropriately in the first
place, so jumped to conclusions."
Of course the article and McAdams reading of the article were correct.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Do you have any idea how arrogant that was?
Does McAdams understand that this is a strawman argument?
Post by John McAdams
And by "acknowledge" you mean "agree with me."
Acknowledging means accepting what the opponent is saying.
Even if it is wrong? Your only opponent is the truth.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
You have no right to demand that anybody agree with you. It's bizarre
that you think you are entitled to that.
McAdams has provided yet another strawman.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Might he than have treated me with respect, instead of
misrepresenting my position? Could McAdams then have been open to actual
debate rather than simply trying to shut me down?
But you were trying to shut down any criticism of Judyth's account.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
It was you who tried to shut down debate by scolding anybody who
expressed skepticism of Judyth.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
You do belong on some college campus, claiming to be victimized simply
because people disagree with you.
More McAdam. None of this has anything to do with my position.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
However, I have to thank McAdams as well as Judyth. I post on this board
to assess his reaction and to determine what part, if any, he has to play
in this sorry equation. And what I am seeing at this point is that there
is a possibility that the Fetzer/Judyth lunatic fringe is supposed to
create as many rabbit trails as possible.
Right. It couldn't possibly be that the buff culture encourages
believers to create a huge number of silly rabbit trails.
Or the rabid JFK lunatic fringe?
Post by John McAdams
It couldn't be there are a lot of crackpots with silly theories.
It could be some of them have a common source with a number of books
published under the same aegis.
Post by John McAdams
Must be come sinister cabal.
No. Just Fetzer. Hardly sinister.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
When sincere researchers go
around in circles they may then come to a group such as this, looking for
information and answers. And what they find is the other part of the
equation -- McAdams -- who, also supposedly as a trusted prof, chides them
and reminds them that this or that theory has been debunked and the only
answers are found in the WCR.
You object to my pointing out that a lot of theories have been
debunked?
Claiming that people are liars or frauds doesn't rise to the level of
debunking.
It does if it is shown that they are liars and frauds.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
The level of McAdams rhetoric and his being "rather slow" (14 years or so)
to acknowledge my positions and the historical process that I am using
give credence to the possibility that this equation is, in fact, true.
Your "position" was to arrogantly claim that nobody was allowed to
express skepticism toward Judyth until *you* decided it was allowed.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
And your "historical process" was not binding on anybody else. You
made a pest of yourself insisting that it was.
Another misperception. I was not allowed to follow a process.
Who or what stopped you? You seem to be thinking as much silly stuff as
ever.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
And you were really slow to catch on that Judyth was a fraud.
McAdams is really slow to catch on that he is the one saying Judyth is a
fraud. I am saying I have found her to be a counterfeit Marina. Not the
same thing.
You invented a plot twist. All CTers are writing this event onto a form
they find personally pleasing.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
And even when you did, that just became grist for yet another silly
conspiracy theory.
Another misperception. I am not putting forth a theory.
Of course you were. That Judyth is some kind of smokescreen in order to
obscure the truth. Luckily you are here to see through that smokescreen
and show everyone the truth.
Post by j***@gmail.com
I am simply
testing an hypothesis in order to assess McAdams' response.
Bud
2017-06-08 19:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Sometimes the clues are revealed by accident. Like Nixon's tapes.
Or Trump's secret back-channel Russian communications to bypass the CIA
(which the CIA knew all about).
Good point, Anthony. In this case, one clue was that Judyth came to my
library to do her shtick. I took that personally. And, of course, I did
not attend. But, I thought, why would someone come halfway around the
world to an obscure library in the suburbs of Minneapolis?
And then I recalled the vague threats and odd statements that Judyth had
made all along. They indicated that Judyth and Fetzer, my arch-adversary
from his UMD days, had cooked this up together.
I was a threat to them. I still am. And now I know why.
Flatter yourself if you want, Pamela, but you are no threat to anybody
with your crazy "Judyth was tasked to take attention off Marina"
theory.
Were that the case, wouldn't McAdams have acknowledged my position on
Judyth long ago?
Quit using arcane nonsensical language of the sort I would expect from
some deconstructionist English professor.
That's the problem. McAdams, with all his education, was apparently not
taught how to debate in an open forum.
This was never a debate. It was people looking at information to see how
much, if any, weight should be given to it.
Post by j***@gmail.com
You acknowledge the position of
your opponent. You don't make one up for them and demand that they agree
to it.
Your nonsense was archived, Pamela.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.assassination.jfk/1VnijHTyWYI/9FLLKx57mYkJ
The issue was whether Judyth had gotten asylum or not. When it was
No, I think the issue was if she applies for asylum.
You still to this day don`t understand what the issue was.
Post by Anthony Marsh
She did and it was
denied.
"How do you explain the fact that she was granted asylum? - Tony Marsh

"Can you explain how the officials could grant her asylum if she did not
seek it?" - Tony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
We went through this with her letter to JFK. Because the WC defenders were
too lazy to do any actual research they did not contest WHAT she wrote,
they just claimed that she never wrote to JFK.
I was the ONLY person who found the letter.
I posted it, although McAdams is afraid to show it.
The only issue is what she wrote and what she meant. If he misremembered
or lied.
That she lied was apparent early. This post was more instructive on the
way CTers think and operate.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
clearly shown she was denied, Pamela moved the goalposts and erected the
strawman "involved in the asylum process". That she was involved in the
asylum process was never an issue, how could she be accepted or denied
without being in the process?
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Your "position" was that nobody was allowed to express skepticism
about Judyth until *you* decided that was allowed.
That is McAdams' position. It has nothing to do with me.
It is accurate. In the thread linked to above, McAdams posted an article
that conflicted with the story Judyth was floating at the time that she
had gotten asylum from Sweden. Pamela jumped right in, saying the articled
was "outdated" and that the article contained "not only misinformation but
disinformation". Of course the article was accurate and Judyth was denied
asylum, but since it went against the story Judyth was peddling at the
time Pamela felt it needed to be attacked, along with anyone who believed
it. Pamela said of McAdams at the time...
"McAdams was unable to assess the article appropriately in the first
place, so jumped to conclusions."
Of course the article and McAdams reading of the article were correct.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Do you have any idea how arrogant that was?
Does McAdams understand that this is a strawman argument?
Post by John McAdams
And by "acknowledge" you mean "agree with me."
Acknowledging means accepting what the opponent is saying.
Even if it is wrong? Your only opponent is the truth.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
You have no right to demand that anybody agree with you. It's bizarre
that you think you are entitled to that.
McAdams has provided yet another strawman.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Might he than have treated me with respect, instead of
misrepresenting my position? Could McAdams then have been open to actual
debate rather than simply trying to shut me down?
But you were trying to shut down any criticism of Judyth's account.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
It was you who tried to shut down debate by scolding anybody who
expressed skepticism of Judyth.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
You do belong on some college campus, claiming to be victimized simply
because people disagree with you.
More McAdam. None of this has anything to do with my position.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
However, I have to thank McAdams as well as Judyth. I post on this board
to assess his reaction and to determine what part, if any, he has to play
in this sorry equation. And what I am seeing at this point is that there
is a possibility that the Fetzer/Judyth lunatic fringe is supposed to
create as many rabbit trails as possible.
Right. It couldn't possibly be that the buff culture encourages
believers to create a huge number of silly rabbit trails.
Or the rabid JFK lunatic fringe?
Post by John McAdams
It couldn't be there are a lot of crackpots with silly theories.
It could be some of them have a common source with a number of books
published under the same aegis.
Post by John McAdams
Must be come sinister cabal.
No. Just Fetzer. Hardly sinister.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
When sincere researchers go
around in circles they may then come to a group such as this, looking for
information and answers. And what they find is the other part of the
equation -- McAdams -- who, also supposedly as a trusted prof, chides them
and reminds them that this or that theory has been debunked and the only
answers are found in the WCR.
You object to my pointing out that a lot of theories have been
debunked?
Claiming that people are liars or frauds doesn't rise to the level of
debunking.
It does if it is shown that they are liars and frauds.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
The level of McAdams rhetoric and his being "rather slow" (14 years or so)
to acknowledge my positions and the historical process that I am using
give credence to the possibility that this equation is, in fact, true.
Your "position" was to arrogantly claim that nobody was allowed to
express skepticism toward Judyth until *you* decided it was allowed.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
And your "historical process" was not binding on anybody else. You
made a pest of yourself insisting that it was.
Another misperception. I was not allowed to follow a process.
Who or what stopped you? You seem to be thinking as much silly stuff as
ever.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
And you were really slow to catch on that Judyth was a fraud.
McAdams is really slow to catch on that he is the one saying Judyth is a
fraud. I am saying I have found her to be a counterfeit Marina. Not the
same thing.
You invented a plot twist. All CTers are writing this event onto a form
they find personally pleasing.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
And even when you did, that just became grist for yet another silly
conspiracy theory.
Another misperception. I am not putting forth a theory.
Of course you were. That Judyth is some kind of smokescreen in order to
obscure the truth. Luckily you are here to see through that smokescreen
and show everyone the truth.
Post by j***@gmail.com
I am simply
testing an hypothesis in order to assess McAdams' response.
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-09 02:50:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Sometimes the clues are revealed by accident. Like Nixon's tapes.
Or Trump's secret back-channel Russian communications to bypass the CIA
(which the CIA knew all about).
Good point, Anthony. In this case, one clue was that Judyth came to my
library to do her shtick. I took that personally. And, of course, I did
not attend. But, I thought, why would someone come halfway around the
world to an obscure library in the suburbs of Minneapolis?
And then I recalled the vague threats and odd statements that Judyth had
made all along. They indicated that Judyth and Fetzer, my arch-adversary
from his UMD days, had cooked this up together.
I was a threat to them. I still am. And now I know why.
Flatter yourself if you want, Pamela, but you are no threat to anybody
with your crazy "Judyth was tasked to take attention off Marina"
theory.
Were that the case, wouldn't McAdams have acknowledged my position on
Judyth long ago?
Quit using arcane nonsensical language of the sort I would expect from
some deconstructionist English professor.
That's the problem. McAdams, with all his education, was apparently not
taught how to debate in an open forum.
This was never a debate. It was people looking at information to see how
much, if any, weight should be given to it.
Post by j***@gmail.com
You acknowledge the position of
your opponent. You don't make one up for them and demand that they agree
to it.
Your nonsense was archived, Pamela.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.assassination.jfk/1VnijHTyWYI/9FLLKx57mYkJ
Thank you for providing a link. Will you then allow others to decide for
themselves what to think?
Post by Bud
The issue was whether Judyth had gotten asylum or not.
There were a number of issues regarding Judyth's quest for asylum. They
were only a part of McAdams' attempt to refuse to acknowledge my position.

When it was
Post by Bud
clearly shown she was denied,
Judyth told me she was finding a job outside of Sweden and anticipated
that the permanent asylum would be denied.


Pamela moved the goalposts and erected the
Post by Bud
strawman "involved in the asylum process".
Judyth was involved in the asylum process until her case was finally
decided. The govt of Sweden sheltered her and provided for her during
that time.
Post by Bud
That she was involved in the
asylum process was never an issue, how could she be accepted or denied
without being in the process?
Judyth was held under the aegis of the Swedish govt. She was not free to
move at will during that time. Call it what you will.
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Your "position" was that nobody was allowed to express skepticism
about Judyth until *you* decided that was allowed.
That is McAdams' position. It has nothing to do with me.
It is accurate.
False. McAdams has a ham-handed approach to Judyth. He demands everyone
call her a 'fraud'. I don't. I found her to be a counterfeit Marina. I
dare you to find a passage where McAdams acknowledges my position.

In the thread linked to above, McAdams posted an article
Post by Bud
that conflicted with the story Judyth was floating at the time that she
had gotten asylum from Sweden. Pamela jumped right in, saying the articled
was "outdated" and that the article contained "not only misinformation but
disinformation". Of course the article was accurate and Judyth was denied
asylum, but since it went against the story Judyth was peddling at the
time Pamela felt it needed to be attacked, along with anyone who believed
it. Pamela said of McAdams at the time...
There are inaccuracies in those documents. Their manner of appearance was
suspicious to me as well.

Judyth was denied permanent asylum. I have stated that all along.
Post by Bud
"McAdams was unable to assess the article appropriately in the first
place, so jumped to conclusions."
Of course the article and McAdams reading of the article were correct.
Your opinion. You are entitled. Just don't force your opinion on anyone
else.
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Do you have any idea how arrogant that was?
Does McAdams understand that this is a strawman argument?
Post by John McAdams
And by "acknowledge" you mean "agree with me."
Acknowledging means accepting what the opponent is saying.
Even if it is wrong? Your only opponent is the truth.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
You have no right to demand that anybody agree with you. It's bizarre
that you think you are entitled to that.
McAdams has provided yet another strawman.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Might he than have treated me with respect, instead of
misrepresenting my position? Could McAdams then have been open to actual
debate rather than simply trying to shut me down?
But you were trying to shut down any criticism of Judyth's account.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
It was you who tried to shut down debate by scolding anybody who
expressed skepticism of Judyth.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
You do belong on some college campus, claiming to be victimized simply
because people disagree with you.
More McAdam. None of this has anything to do with my position.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
However, I have to thank McAdams as well as Judyth. I post on this board
to assess his reaction and to determine what part, if any, he has to play
in this sorry equation. And what I am seeing at this point is that there
is a possibility that the Fetzer/Judyth lunatic fringe is supposed to
create as many rabbit trails as possible.
Right. It couldn't possibly be that the buff culture encourages
believers to create a huge number of silly rabbit trails.
Or the rabid JFK lunatic fringe?
Post by John McAdams
It couldn't be there are a lot of crackpots with silly theories.
It could be some of them have a common source with a number of books
published under the same aegis.
Post by John McAdams
Must be come sinister cabal.
No. Just Fetzer. Hardly sinister.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
When sincere researchers go
around in circles they may then come to a group such as this, looking for
information and answers. And what they find is the other part of the
equation -- McAdams -- who, also supposedly as a trusted prof, chides them
and reminds them that this or that theory has been debunked and the only
answers are found in the WCR.
You object to my pointing out that a lot of theories have been
debunked?
Claiming that people are liars or frauds doesn't rise to the level of
debunking.
It does if it is shown that they are liars and frauds.
Not if that is all that is said. It is like the boy who cried 'wolf'.
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
The level of McAdams rhetoric and his being "rather slow" (14 years or so)
to acknowledge my positions and the historical process that I am using
give credence to the possibility that this equation is, in fact, true.
Your "position" was to arrogantly claim that nobody was allowed to
express skepticism toward Judyth until *you* decided it was allowed.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
And your "historical process" was not binding on anybody else. You
made a pest of yourself insisting that it was.
Another misperception. I was not allowed to follow a process.
Who or what stopped you? You seem to be thinking as much silly stuff as
ever.
I felt I was pretty much told to claim Judyth was a 'fraud' or shut up.
I was in the process of finding out who she was for myself.
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
And you were really slow to catch on that Judyth was a fraud.
McAdams is really slow to catch on that he is the one saying Judyth is a
fraud. I am saying I have found her to be a counterfeit Marina. Not the
same thing.
You invented a plot twist. All CTers are writing this event onto a form
they find personally pleasing.
I am testing an hypothesis.
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
And even when you did, that just became grist for yet another silly
conspiracy theory.
Another misperception. I am not putting forth a theory.
Of course you were. That Judyth is some kind of smokescreen in order to
obscure the truth. Luckily you are here to see through that smokescreen
and show everyone the truth.
No. It is an hypothesis. Not the same thing.
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I am simply
testing an hypothesis in order to assess McAdams' response.
Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
Bud
2017-06-10 01:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Sometimes the clues are revealed by accident. Like Nixon's tapes.
Or Trump's secret back-channel Russian communications to bypass the CIA
(which the CIA knew all about).
Good point, Anthony. In this case, one clue was that Judyth came to my
library to do her shtick. I took that personally. And, of course, I did
not attend. But, I thought, why would someone come halfway around the
world to an obscure library in the suburbs of Minneapolis?
And then I recalled the vague threats and odd statements that Judyth had
made all along. They indicated that Judyth and Fetzer, my arch-adversary
from his UMD days, had cooked this up together.
I was a threat to them. I still am. And now I know why.
Flatter yourself if you want, Pamela, but you are no threat to anybody
with your crazy "Judyth was tasked to take attention off Marina"
theory.
Were that the case, wouldn't McAdams have acknowledged my position on
Judyth long ago?
Quit using arcane nonsensical language of the sort I would expect from
some deconstructionist English professor.
That's the problem. McAdams, with all his education, was apparently not
taught how to debate in an open forum.
This was never a debate. It was people looking at information to see how
much, if any, weight should be given to it.
Post by j***@gmail.com
You acknowledge the position of
your opponent. You don't make one up for them and demand that they agree
to it.
Your nonsense was archived, Pamela.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.assassination.jfk/1VnijHTyWYI/9FLLKx57mYkJ
Thank you for providing a link. Will you then allow others to decide for
themselves what to think?
Unless I can figure out a way to get them to think what I think, yes.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
The issue was whether Judyth had gotten asylum or not.
There were a number of issues regarding Judyth's quest for asylum. They
were only a part of McAdams' attempt to refuse to acknowledge my position.
When it was
Post by Bud
clearly shown she was denied,
Judyth told me she was finding a job outside of Sweden and anticipated
that the permanent asylum would be denied.
Hard to imagine anything less meaningful than "Judyth said..."

And when did she tell you this, after she was already denied?
Post by j***@gmail.com
Pamela moved the goalposts and erected the
Post by Bud
strawman "involved in the asylum process".
Judyth was involved in the asylum process until her case was finally
decided. The govt of Sweden sheltered her and provided for her during
that time.
Did she pet a cat while in Sweden? That is as meaningful to the argument
as to whether she got asylum as anything you just wrote.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
That she was involved in the
asylum process was never an issue, how could she be accepted or denied
without being in the process?
Judyth was held under the aegis of the Swedish govt. She was not free to
move at will during that time.
Says who?
Post by j***@gmail.com
Call it what you will.
Call it anything that pops into your head. It wasn`t asylum.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Your "position" was that nobody was allowed to express skepticism
about Judyth until *you* decided that was allowed.
That is McAdams' position. It has nothing to do with me.
It is accurate.
False. McAdams has a ham-handed approach to Judyth.
Read the thread I posted. McAdams posted an article saying Judyth was
denied asylum. You jumped in attacking McAdams and the article.
Post by j***@gmail.com
He demands everyone
call her a 'fraud'. I don't. I found her to be a counterfeit Marina. I
dare you to find a passage where McAdams acknowledges my position.
I see your characterization of things as inventions to arrange them to
fit to your own satisfaction.
Post by j***@gmail.com
In the thread linked to above, McAdams posted an article
Post by Bud
that conflicted with the story Judyth was floating at the time that she
had gotten asylum from Sweden. Pamela jumped right in, saying the articled
was "outdated" and that the article contained "not only misinformation but
disinformation". Of course the article was accurate and Judyth was denied
asylum, but since it went against the story Judyth was peddling at the
time Pamela felt it needed to be attacked, along with anyone who believed
it. Pamela said of McAdams at the time...
There are inaccuracies in those documents. Their manner of appearance was
suspicious to me as well.
You are a CTer, of course you are going to be suspicious of information
that says things that goes against what you want to believe.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Judyth was denied permanent asylum. I have stated that all along.
I think I would be hard pressed to find even one instance of you saying
that.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
"McAdams was unable to assess the article appropriately in the first
place, so jumped to conclusions."
Of course the article and McAdams reading of the article were correct.
Your opinion. You are entitled. Just don't force your opinion on anyone
else.
Well, let me try. You must believe what I say. Did that work?
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Do you have any idea how arrogant that was?
Does McAdams understand that this is a strawman argument?
Post by John McAdams
And by "acknowledge" you mean "agree with me."
Acknowledging means accepting what the opponent is saying.
Even if it is wrong? Your only opponent is the truth.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
You have no right to demand that anybody agree with you. It's bizarre
that you think you are entitled to that.
McAdams has provided yet another strawman.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Might he than have treated me with respect, instead of
misrepresenting my position? Could McAdams then have been open to actual
debate rather than simply trying to shut me down?
But you were trying to shut down any criticism of Judyth's account.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
It was you who tried to shut down debate by scolding anybody who
expressed skepticism of Judyth.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
You do belong on some college campus, claiming to be victimized simply
because people disagree with you.
More McAdam. None of this has anything to do with my position.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
However, I have to thank McAdams as well as Judyth. I post on this board
to assess his reaction and to determine what part, if any, he has to play
in this sorry equation. And what I am seeing at this point is that there
is a possibility that the Fetzer/Judyth lunatic fringe is supposed to
create as many rabbit trails as possible.
Right. It couldn't possibly be that the buff culture encourages
believers to create a huge number of silly rabbit trails.
Or the rabid JFK lunatic fringe?
Post by John McAdams
It couldn't be there are a lot of crackpots with silly theories.
It could be some of them have a common source with a number of books
published under the same aegis.
Post by John McAdams
Must be come sinister cabal.
No. Just Fetzer. Hardly sinister.
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
When sincere researchers go
around in circles they may then come to a group such as this, looking for
information and answers. And what they find is the other part of the
equation -- McAdams -- who, also supposedly as a trusted prof, chides them
and reminds them that this or that theory has been debunked and the only
answers are found in the WCR.
You object to my pointing out that a lot of theories have been
debunked?
Claiming that people are liars or frauds doesn't rise to the level of
debunking.
It does if it is shown that they are liars and frauds.
Not if that is all that is said. It is like the boy who cried 'wolf'.
Ah, it might be true that there was no wolf, but that doesn`t rule out
bigfoot.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
The level of McAdams rhetoric and his being "rather slow" (14 years or so)
to acknowledge my positions and the historical process that I am using
give credence to the possibility that this equation is, in fact, true.
Your "position" was to arrogantly claim that nobody was allowed to
express skepticism toward Judyth until *you* decided it was allowed.
Pure McAdams.
Post by John McAdams
And your "historical process" was not binding on anybody else. You
made a pest of yourself insisting that it was.
Another misperception. I was not allowed to follow a process.
Who or what stopped you? You seem to be thinking as much silly stuff as
ever.
I felt I was pretty much told to claim Judyth was a 'fraud' or shut up.
Never let facts get in the way of your feelings.
Post by j***@gmail.com
I was in the process of finding out who she was for myself.
Your processes were messed up. You should have been applying critical
thinking and sound reasoning. Then you could have figured out she was a
fraud in minutes rather than years.

In the future, when someone is telling amazing and fantastic stories,
but they say the proof is in a box under their bed that they will produce
"someday", this is a huge red flag. Your problem is that you desperately
wanted to believe there was a box with proof, this made you more receptive
to being scammed.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
And you were really slow to catch on that Judyth was a fraud.
McAdams is really slow to catch on that he is the one saying Judyth is a
fraud. I am saying I have found her to be a counterfeit Marina. Not the
same thing.
You invented a plot twist. All CTers are writing this event onto a form
they find personally pleasing.
I am testing an hypothesis.
You are confirming mine.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
And even when you did, that just became grist for yet another silly
conspiracy theory.
Another misperception. I am not putting forth a theory.
Of course you were. That Judyth is some kind of smokescreen in order to
obscure the truth. Luckily you are here to see through that smokescreen
and show everyone the truth.
No. It is an hypothesis. Not the same thing.
Putting a suit on a pig doesn`t mean it is no longer a pig.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I am simply
testing an hypothesis in order to assess McAdams' response.
Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
Bud
2017-06-03 22:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Sometimes the clues are revealed by accident. Like Nixon's tapes.
Or Trump's secret back-channel Russian communications to bypass the CIA
(which the CIA knew all about).
Good point, Anthony. In this case, one clue was that Judyth came to my
library to do her shtick. I took that personally. And, of course, I did
not attend. But, I thought, why would someone come halfway around the
world to an obscure library in the suburbs of Minneapolis?
And then I recalled the vague threats and odd statements that Judyth had
made all along. They indicated that Judyth and Fetzer, my arch-adversary
from his UMD days, had cooked this up together.
I was a threat to them. I still am. And now I know why.
Flatter yourself if you want, Pamela, but you are no threat to anybody
with your crazy "Judyth was tasked to take attention off Marina"
theory.
Were that the case, wouldn't McAdams have acknowledged my position on
Judyth long ago? Might he than have treated me with respect, instead of
misrepresenting my position? Could McAdams then have been open to actual
debate rather than simply trying to shut me down?
However, I have to thank McAdams as well as Judyth. I post on this board
to assess his reaction and to determine what part, if any, he has to play
in this sorry equation. And what I am seeing at this point is that there
is a possibility that the Fetzer/Judyth lunatic fringe is supposed to
create as many rabbit trails as possible. When sincere researchers go
around in circles they may then come to a group such as this, looking for
information and answers. And what they find is the other part of the
equation -- McAdams -- who, also supposedly as a trusted prof, chides them
and reminds them that this or that theory has been debunked and the only
answers are found in the WCR.
The level of McAdams rhetoric and his being "rather slow" (14 years or so)
to acknowledge my positions and the historical process that I am using
give credence to the possibility that this equation is, in fact, true.
Pamela Brown
findingjudyth,blogspot.com
Conspiracy theorists, creating a reality they are comfortable with since
1963.
Jason Burke
2017-06-05 01:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams has not changed his tactics since the good-old-days. He hasn't
even bothered to read my post.
McAdams is unable to discern that Judyth has given me a clue that can take
down the entire ongoing coverup,
Sometimes the clues are revealed by accident. Like Nixon's tapes.
Or Trump's secret back-channel Russian communications to bypass the CIA
(which the CIA knew all about).
Good point, Anthony. In this case, one clue was that Judyth came to my
library to do her shtick. I took that personally. And, of course, I did
not attend. But, I thought, why would someone come halfway around the
world to an obscure library in the suburbs of Minneapolis?
And then I recalled the vague threats and odd statements that Judyth had
made all along. They indicated that Judyth and Fetzer, my arch-adversary
from his UMD days, had cooked this up together.
I was a threat to them. I still am. And now I know why.
Flatter yourself if you want, Pamela, but you are no threat to anybody
with your crazy "Judyth was tasked to take attention off Marina"
theory.
Were that the case, wouldn't McAdams have acknowledged my position on
Judyth long ago? Might he than have treated me with respect, instead of
misrepresenting my position? Could McAdams then have been open to actual
debate rather than simply trying to shut me down?
However, I have to thank McAdams as well as Judyth. I post on this board
to assess his reaction and to determine what part, if any, he has to play
in this sorry equation. And what I am seeing at this point is that there
is a possibility that the Fetzer/Judyth lunatic fringe is supposed to
create as many rabbit trails as possible. When sincere researchers go
around in circles they may then come to a group such as this, looking for
information and answers. And what they find is the other part of the
equation -- McAdams -- who, also supposedly as a trusted prof, chides them
and reminds them that this or that theory has been debunked and the only
answers are found in the WCR.
Yeah, the WCR *should* have predicted all the idiots that have come out
of their little holes in the 53 years since.

Luckily, most retreat back to their hovels after having their, uh,
"theories", wiped off the face of the earth.
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
The level of McAdams rhetoric and his being "rather slow" (14 years or so)
to acknowledge my positions and the historical process that I am using
give credence to the possibility that this equation is, in fact, true.
Pamela Brown
findingjudyth,blogspot.com
Conspiracy theorists, creating a reality they are comfortable with since
1963.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-28 02:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
In some countries with rights it's called fairness.
Post by John McAdams
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
Just don't jump to conclusions before you've seen the evidence.
Post by John McAdams
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
And YOU were extremely slow to realize that Trump is a crook.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
2017-05-29 13:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
In some countries with rights it's called fairness.
Remember that when you see lefties jumping to the conclusion that every time there is an alleged hate crime, a Trump supporter was behind it. Even the phony, staged ones.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
Just don't jump to conclusions before you've seen the evidence.
<snicker> Judyth was the biggest fraud since the alien autopsy.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
And YOU were extremely slow to realize that Trump is a crook.
It was easier with Hillary.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-02 17:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she
(Pamela) had completed her "process."
In some countries with rights it's called fairness.
Post by John McAdams
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
Just don't jump to conclusions before you've seen the evidence.
Post by John McAdams
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
And YOU were extremely slow to realize that Trump is a crook.
Thank you, Anthony. And McAdams was 'really slow' to acknowledge my
position on Judyth. In fact, he still has not. It must be a threat. :-)
John McAdams
2017-06-02 18:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
Just don't jump to conclusions before you've seen the evidence.
Post by John McAdams
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
And YOU were extremely slow to realize that Trump is a crook.
Thank you, Anthony. And McAdams was 'really slow' to acknowledge my
position on Judyth. In fact, he still has not. It must be a threat. :-)
No, you are just an annoyance.

You sound like some politically correct professor in a humanities
department demanding that somebody "acknowledge" your "position."

Nobody has to acknowledge *anything* about you, Pamela.

Your *position* what that nobody was allowed to express skepticism
about Judyth until *you* said they could.

Has it every occurred to you how arrogant that was?

You don't get to tell people what they can and can't post. In fact, I
should have rejected all your posts scolding people for saying things
that *you* disapproved.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-03 12:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could
reach a conclusion or not?
Just don't jump to conclusions before you've seen the evidence.
Post by John McAdams
And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a
fraud.
And YOU were extremely slow to realize that Trump is a crook.
Thank you, Anthony. And McAdams was 'really slow' to acknowledge my
position on Judyth. In fact, he still has not. It must be a threat. :-)
No, you are just an annoyance.
You sound like some politically correct professor in a humanities
department demanding that somebody "acknowledge" your "position."
Jeez, you just can't stand Liberal Arts because it has the word
"Liberal" in it!
Post by John McAdams
Nobody has to acknowledge *anything* about you, Pamela.
Your *position* what that nobody was allowed to express skepticism
about Judyth until *you* said they could.
No, she said come to a conclusion. Stop misrepresenting other peoples
arguments.
Post by John McAdams
Has it every occurred to you how arrogant that was?
Has it ever occurred to you how arrogant YOU are every time?
Post by John McAdams
You don't get to tell people what they can and can't post. In fact, I
should have rejected all your posts scolding people for saying things
that *you* disapproved.
That is the .John we all know and love. Just censor EVERYTHING coming
from Liberals.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-02 17:56:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Really? Just how is choosing to keep an open mind harmful to one's
credibility?
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
wait! was that the only reason she begged me to become
part of her 'team' to begin with? -- but for outlining a far deeper
cover-up of the assassination of JFK that anything I could have possibly
imagined. In fact, were it not for the duplicity and utter historical
depravity of Judyth and her story, I might have uncovered this phenomenon
and have been unable to believe that it might be true! Suffice it to say,
I am using the key concept that I have uncovered in one of my upcoming
books on the JFK assassination -- no, not the limo book -- that will
follow more traditional concepts -- but the book In Broad Daylight that
has haunted me since my first trip to Dallas in 1997.
Basically, what does this concept consist of? Let me give you a preview.
First of all, however, I must say that I will be putting forth an
hypothesis, which I will then demonstrate. That does not mean that I am
trying to force anyone to 'believe' anything. Instead, I hope to persuade
you that my position has merit.
My hypothesis starts with the axiom that Judyth's only significance in the
JFK research community is that of a counterfeit Marina. Her entire intent,
right from the start, was to overshadow and replace Marina. We are
supposed to stop thinking about Marina. In fact, we are to forget Marine
even existed.
Why is this? Let me tell you.
What happened to Marina during the 1980's? Can we recall?
Let's think….hmmm….
Marina recanted.
Marina, who had once been convinced (by what she had been shown) that Lee
Oswald was guilty, had now read the 27 volumes of WCR Hearings and
Exhibits, and she decided he was innocent.
<snicker> Yes, it was careful study of the evidence against him (some of
which she provided) that led her to conclude he was innocent. Even though
she knew firsthand that he attempted political assassination before, she
figured he was innocent of the political assassination that occurred on
the doorstep of his work. Even though she led police to where she thought
Lee kept his rifle, only to find it missing, she thought... what, exactly?
It was misplaced? Lee put it in the shop? And even though she served as a
punching bag for this loser, she came to believe he would never act out
violently, because...?
Or maybe, when the kids got old enough to ask about daddy, "patsy"
sounded better than "cold blooded murderer of a popular President".
Post by j***@gmail.com
Oh yeah <yawn> you may say…we already know that. No big deal.
Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay
of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?
And yes -- you would have to cover that up!
So in slithers Judyth to divide the research community and make waves
wherever she goes, turning everyone's preconceived concepts upside
down…
And the rest, as we say, is history -- or, in this case, pseudo-history…
Thank you, Judyth!
http://findingjudyth.blogspot.com/2017/05/who-knew-0.html
Pamela Brown
Bud
2017-06-03 00:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Really? Just how is choosing to keep an open mind harmful to one's
credibility?
Seems this quote is appropriate...

"If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw a lot of
rubbish into it." -William A. Orton

But the reality is that there was never any compelling reason to give
her the time of day, and the only reason you did was because of your own
personal bias to believe Oswald was a patsy. She was selling the Brooklyn
Bridge and you were holding out on the possibility that she might actually
hold the deed. How does being a rube and a dupe do anything but have a
negative impact on your credibility?
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
wait! was that the only reason she begged me to become
part of her 'team' to begin with? -- but for outlining a far deeper
cover-up of the assassination of JFK that anything I could have possibly
imagined. In fact, were it not for the duplicity and utter historical
depravity of Judyth and her story, I might have uncovered this phenomenon
and have been unable to believe that it might be true! Suffice it to say,
I am using the key concept that I have uncovered in one of my upcoming
books on the JFK assassination -- no, not the limo book -- that will
follow more traditional concepts -- but the book In Broad Daylight that
has haunted me since my first trip to Dallas in 1997.
Basically, what does this concept consist of? Let me give you a preview.
First of all, however, I must say that I will be putting forth an
hypothesis, which I will then demonstrate. That does not mean that I am
trying to force anyone to 'believe' anything. Instead, I hope to persuade
you that my position has merit.
My hypothesis starts with the axiom that Judyth's only significance in the
JFK research community is that of a counterfeit Marina. Her entire intent,
right from the start, was to overshadow and replace Marina. We are
supposed to stop thinking about Marina. In fact, we are to forget Marine
even existed.
Why is this? Let me tell you.
What happened to Marina during the 1980's? Can we recall?
Let's think….hmmm….
Marina recanted.
Marina, who had once been convinced (by what she had been shown) that Lee
Oswald was guilty, had now read the 27 volumes of WCR Hearings and
Exhibits, and she decided he was innocent.
<snicker> Yes, it was careful study of the evidence against him (some of
which she provided) that led her to conclude he was innocent. Even though
she knew firsthand that he attempted political assassination before, she
figured he was innocent of the political assassination that occurred on
the doorstep of his work. Even though she led police to where she thought
Lee kept his rifle, only to find it missing, she thought... what, exactly?
It was misplaced? Lee put it in the shop? And even though she served as a
punching bag for this loser, she came to believe he would never act out
violently, because...?
Or maybe, when the kids got old enough to ask about daddy, "patsy"
sounded better than "cold blooded murderer of a popular President".
Post by j***@gmail.com
Oh yeah <yawn> you may say…we already know that. No big deal.
Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay
of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?
And yes -- you would have to cover that up!
So in slithers Judyth to divide the research community and make waves
wherever she goes, turning everyone's preconceived concepts upside
down…
And the rest, as we say, is history -- or, in this case, pseudo-history…
Thank you, Judyth!
http://findingjudyth.blogspot.com/2017/05/who-knew-0.html
Pamela Brown
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-04 13:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Really? Just how is choosing to keep an open mind harmful to one's
credibility?
Seems this quote is appropriate...
"If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw a lot of
rubbish into it." -William A. Orton
But the reality is that there was never any compelling reason to give
her the time of day, and the only reason you did was because of your own
Well, if she worked in the same building she might have seen or heard
something. Why did the DPD interview so many people from the TSBD? How
many said they SAW Oswald firing shots?
Post by Bud
personal bias to believe Oswald was a patsy. She was selling the Brooklyn
Bridge and you were holding out on the possibility that she might actually
hold the deed. How does being a rube and a dupe do anything but have a
negative impact on your credibility?
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
wait! was that the only reason she begged me to become
part of her 'team' to begin with? -- but for outlining a far deeper
cover-up of the assassination of JFK that anything I could have possibly
imagined. In fact, were it not for the duplicity and utter historical
depravity of Judyth and her story, I might have uncovered this phenomenon
and have been unable to believe that it might be true! Suffice it to say,
I am using the key concept that I have uncovered in one of my upcoming
books on the JFK assassination -- no, not the limo book -- that will
follow more traditional concepts -- but the book In Broad Daylight that
has haunted me since my first trip to Dallas in 1997.
Basically, what does this concept consist of? Let me give you a preview.
First of all, however, I must say that I will be putting forth an
hypothesis, which I will then demonstrate. That does not mean that I am
trying to force anyone to 'believe' anything. Instead, I hope to persuade
you that my position has merit.
My hypothesis starts with the axiom that Judyth's only significance in the
JFK research community is that of a counterfeit Marina. Her entire intent,
right from the start, was to overshadow and replace Marina. We are
supposed to stop thinking about Marina. In fact, we are to forget Marine
even existed.
Why is this? Let me tell you.
What happened to Marina during the 1980's? Can we recall?
Let's think???.hmmm???.
Marina recanted.
Marina, who had once been convinced (by what she had been shown) that Lee
Oswald was guilty, had now read the 27 volumes of WCR Hearings and
Exhibits, and she decided he was innocent.
<snicker> Yes, it was careful study of the evidence against him (some of
which she provided) that led her to conclude he was innocent. Even though
she knew firsthand that he attempted political assassination before, she
figured he was innocent of the political assassination that occurred on
the doorstep of his work. Even though she led police to where she thought
Lee kept his rifle, only to find it missing, she thought... what, exactly?
It was misplaced? Lee put it in the shop? And even though she served as a
punching bag for this loser, she came to believe he would never act out
violently, because...?
Or maybe, when the kids got old enough to ask about daddy, "patsy"
sounded better than "cold blooded murderer of a popular President".
Post by j***@gmail.com
Oh yeah <yawn> you may say???we already know that. No big deal.
Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay
of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?
And yes -- you would have to cover that up!
So in slithers Judyth to divide the research community and make waves
wherever she goes, turning everyone's preconceived concepts upside
down???
And the rest, as we say, is history -- or, in this case, pseudo-history???
Thank you, Judyth!
http://findingjudyth.blogspot.com/2017/05/who-knew-0.html
Pamela Brown
Bud
2017-06-05 14:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Really? Just how is choosing to keep an open mind harmful to one's
credibility?
Seems this quote is appropriate...
"If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw a lot of
rubbish into it." -William A. Orton
But the reality is that there was never any compelling reason to give
her the time of day, and the only reason you did was because of your own
Well, if she worked in the same building she might have seen or heard
something.
And if she was in the Sniper`s Nest with him he could have used her as a
gun rest.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why did the DPD interview so many people from the TSBD? How
many said they SAW Oswald firing shots?
Post by Bud
personal bias to believe Oswald was a patsy. She was selling the Brooklyn
Bridge and you were holding out on the possibility that she might actually
hold the deed. How does being a rube and a dupe do anything but have a
negative impact on your credibility?
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
wait! was that the only reason she begged me to become
part of her 'team' to begin with? -- but for outlining a far deeper
cover-up of the assassination of JFK that anything I could have possibly
imagined. In fact, were it not for the duplicity and utter historical
depravity of Judyth and her story, I might have uncovered this phenomenon
and have been unable to believe that it might be true! Suffice it to say,
I am using the key concept that I have uncovered in one of my upcoming
books on the JFK assassination -- no, not the limo book -- that will
follow more traditional concepts -- but the book In Broad Daylight that
has haunted me since my first trip to Dallas in 1997.
Basically, what does this concept consist of? Let me give you a preview.
First of all, however, I must say that I will be putting forth an
hypothesis, which I will then demonstrate. That does not mean that I am
trying to force anyone to 'believe' anything. Instead, I hope to persuade
you that my position has merit.
My hypothesis starts with the axiom that Judyth's only significance in the
JFK research community is that of a counterfeit Marina. Her entire intent,
right from the start, was to overshadow and replace Marina. We are
supposed to stop thinking about Marina. In fact, we are to forget Marine
even existed.
Why is this? Let me tell you.
What happened to Marina during the 1980's? Can we recall?
Let's think???.hmmm???.
Marina recanted.
Marina, who had once been convinced (by what she had been shown) that Lee
Oswald was guilty, had now read the 27 volumes of WCR Hearings and
Exhibits, and she decided he was innocent.
<snicker> Yes, it was careful study of the evidence against him (some of
which she provided) that led her to conclude he was innocent. Even though
she knew firsthand that he attempted political assassination before, she
figured he was innocent of the political assassination that occurred on
the doorstep of his work. Even though she led police to where she thought
Lee kept his rifle, only to find it missing, she thought... what, exactly?
It was misplaced? Lee put it in the shop? And even though she served as a
punching bag for this loser, she came to believe he would never act out
violently, because...?
Or maybe, when the kids got old enough to ask about daddy, "patsy"
sounded better than "cold blooded murderer of a popular President".
Post by j***@gmail.com
Oh yeah <yawn> you may say???we already know that. No big deal.
Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay
of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?
And yes -- you would have to cover that up!
So in slithers Judyth to divide the research community and make waves
wherever she goes, turning everyone's preconceived concepts upside
down???
And the rest, as we say, is history -- or, in this case, pseudo-history???
Thank you, Judyth!
http://findingjudyth.blogspot.com/2017/05/who-knew-0.html
Pamela Brown
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-03 12:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility --
The harm that was done to your credibility was of your own making.
Really? Just how is choosing to keep an open mind harmful to one's
credibility?
Because you leave your mind open to seditious thoughts I guess.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
Post by j***@gmail.com
wait! was that the only reason she begged me to become
part of her 'team' to begin with? -- but for outlining a far deeper
cover-up of the assassination of JFK that anything I could have possibly
imagined. In fact, were it not for the duplicity and utter historical
depravity of Judyth and her story, I might have uncovered this phenomenon
and have been unable to believe that it might be true! Suffice it to say,
I am using the key concept that I have uncovered in one of my upcoming
books on the JFK assassination -- no, not the limo book -- that will
follow more traditional concepts -- but the book In Broad Daylight that
has haunted me since my first trip to Dallas in 1997.
Basically, what does this concept consist of? Let me give you a preview.
First of all, however, I must say that I will be putting forth an
hypothesis, which I will then demonstrate. That does not mean that I am
trying to force anyone to 'believe' anything. Instead, I hope to persuade
you that my position has merit.
My hypothesis starts with the axiom that Judyth's only significance in the
JFK research community is that of a counterfeit Marina. Her entire intent,
right from the start, was to overshadow and replace Marina. We are
supposed to stop thinking about Marina. In fact, we are to forget Marine
even existed.
Why is this? Let me tell you.
What happened to Marina during the 1980's? Can we recall?
Let's think….hmmm….
Marina recanted.
Marina, who had once been convinced (by what she had been shown) that Lee
Oswald was guilty, had now read the 27 volumes of WCR Hearings and
Exhibits, and she decided he was innocent.
<snicker> Yes, it was careful study of the evidence against him (some of
which she provided) that led her to conclude he was innocent. Even though
she knew firsthand that he attempted political assassination before, she
figured he was innocent of the political assassination that occurred on
the doorstep of his work. Even though she led police to where she thought
Lee kept his rifle, only to find it missing, she thought... what, exactly?
It was misplaced? Lee put it in the shop? And even though she served as a
punching bag for this loser, she came to believe he would never act out
violently, because...?
Or maybe, when the kids got old enough to ask about daddy, "patsy"
sounded better than "cold blooded murderer of a popular President".
Post by j***@gmail.com
Oh yeah <yawn> you may say…we already know that. No big deal.
Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay
of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?
And yes -- you would have to cover that up!
So in slithers Judyth to divide the research community and make waves
wherever she goes, turning everyone's preconceived concepts upside
down…
And the rest, as we say, is history -- or, in this case, pseudo-history…
Thank you, Judyth!
http://findingjudyth.blogspot.com/2017/05/who-knew-0.html
Pamela Brown
John McAdams
2017-05-27 03:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay
of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?
And yes -- you would have to cover that up!
No, not if the "star witness" recanted none of her key testimony.

Not about Oswald having a rifle.

Not about Oswald admitting he shot at Walker.

Not about having taken the Backyard Photos.

Not about knowing a rifle was in a blanket in the Paine garage.

Not about Oswald going to Mexico City.

Simple fact: Marina's *opinion* means nothing. What she saw and
heard does.

Further, Judyth is not the minion of any "cover up." She is a mentally
unbalanced lady who loves the attention her charade gets her.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-02 17:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay
of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?
And yes -- you would have to cover that up!
No, not if the "star witness" recanted none of her key testimony.
Not about Oswald having a rifle.
Not about Oswald admitting he shot at Walker.
Not about having taken the Backyard Photos.
Not about knowing a rifle was in a blanket in the Paine garage.
Not about Oswald going to Mexico City.
Simple fact: Marina's *opinion* means nothing. What she saw and
heard does.
Further, Judyth is not the minion of any "cover up." She is a mentally
unbalanced lady who loves the attention her charade gets her.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Were that to be the case, there would be no need for closing the door to
discussion, would there?

Everyone acknowledges that Marina is the star of the WCR. Now, all we are
supposed to be left with is her 'opinion'? Rather dismissive.

Marian recanted her thinking that LHO fired the shots that killed JFK.
In fact, she thinks he was set up. A patsy.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-02 23:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay
of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?
And yes -- you would have to cover that up!
No, not if the "star witness" recanted none of her key testimony.
Not about Oswald having a rifle.
Not about Oswald admitting he shot at Walker.
Not about having taken the Backyard Photos.
Not about knowing a rifle was in a blanket in the Paine garage.
Not about Oswald going to Mexico City.
Simple fact: Marina's *opinion* means nothing. What she saw and
heard does.
Further, Judyth is not the minion of any "cover up." She is a mentally
unbalanced lady who loves the attention her charade gets her.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Were that to be the case, there would be no need for closing the door to
discussion, would there?
He can't allow free speech. Someone might disagree with him.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Everyone acknowledges that Marina is the star of the WCR. Now, all we are
supposed to be left with is her 'opinion'? Rather dismissive.
Marian recanted her thinking that LHO fired the shots that killed JFK.
In fact, she thinks he was set up. A patsy.
John McAdams
2017-06-02 23:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay
of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?
And yes -- you would have to cover that up!
No, not if the "star witness" recanted none of her key testimony.
Not about Oswald having a rifle.
Not about Oswald admitting he shot at Walker.
Not about having taken the Backyard Photos.
Not about knowing a rifle was in a blanket in the Paine garage.
Not about Oswald going to Mexico City.
Simple fact: Marina's *opinion* means nothing. What she saw and
heard does.
Further, Judyth is not the minion of any "cover up." She is a mentally
unbalanced lady who loves the attention her charade gets her.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Were that to be the case, there would be no need for closing the door to
discussion, would there?
You are the one who wanted to close the door to discussion of Judyth
until you had completed your "process."

You actually believed you had the right to tell people to shut up
until you said they could speak.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Everyone acknowledges that Marina is the star of the WCR. Now, all we are
supposed to be left with is her 'opinion'? Rather dismissive.
You are dismissive of her testimony of actual events that she
witnessed.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Marian recanted her thinking that LHO fired the shots that killed JFK.
In fact, she thinks he was set up. A patsy.
Yep, under the influence of buffs who indoctrinated her.

But she has never retracted any of her testimony.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bpete1969
2017-06-03 12:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay
of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?
And yes -- you would have to cover that up!
No, not if the "star witness" recanted none of her key testimony.
Not about Oswald having a rifle.
Not about Oswald admitting he shot at Walker.
Not about having taken the Backyard Photos.
Not about knowing a rifle was in a blanket in the Paine garage.
Not about Oswald going to Mexico City.
Simple fact: Marina's *opinion* means nothing. What she saw and
heard does.
Further, Judyth is not the minion of any "cover up." She is a mentally
unbalanced lady who loves the attention her charade gets her.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Were that to be the case, there would be no need for closing the door to
discussion, would there?
You are the one who wanted to close the door to discussion of Judyth
until you had completed your "process."
You actually believed you had the right to tell people to shut up
until you said they could speak.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Everyone acknowledges that Marina is the star of the WCR. Now, all we are
supposed to be left with is her 'opinion'? Rather dismissive.
You are dismissive of her testimony of actual events that she
witnessed.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Marian recanted her thinking that LHO fired the shots that killed JFK.
In fact, she thinks he was set up. A patsy.
Yep, under the influence of buffs who indoctrinated her.
But she has never retracted any of her testimony.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Have to agree with John on this one. You were quite dismissive of anyone
questioning Judyth on her inconsistencies at the Ed Forum.

Luckily it's all still there for anyone to see. Fetzer's thread on Judyth
in Exile is a perfect example. Funny thing that her biggest untruth is
there and no one caught it at the time.
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-04 01:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay
of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?
And yes -- you would have to cover that up!
No, not if the "star witness" recanted none of her key testimony.
Not about Oswald having a rifle.
Not about Oswald admitting he shot at Walker.
Not about having taken the Backyard Photos.
Not about knowing a rifle was in a blanket in the Paine garage.
Not about Oswald going to Mexico City.
Simple fact: Marina's *opinion* means nothing. What she saw and
heard does.
Further, Judyth is not the minion of any "cover up." She is a mentally
unbalanced lady who loves the attention her charade gets her.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Were that to be the case, there would be no need for closing the door to
discussion, would there?
You are the one who wanted to close the door to discussion of Judyth
until you had completed your "process."
You actually believed you had the right to tell people to shut up
until you said they could speak.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Everyone acknowledges that Marina is the star of the WCR. Now, all we are
supposed to be left with is her 'opinion'? Rather dismissive.
You are dismissive of her testimony of actual events that she
witnessed.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Marian recanted her thinking that LHO fired the shots that killed JFK.
In fact, she thinks he was set up. A patsy.
Yep, under the influence of buffs who indoctrinated her.
But she has never retracted any of her testimony.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Have to agree with John on this one. You were quite dismissive of anyone
questioning Judyth on her inconsistencies at the Ed Forum.
False. I did do my best to post the inaccuracies in the logic of some of
those attacking Judyth without using logic or documentation.
Post by bpete1969
Luckily it's all still there for anyone to see.
Agree. Let's allow people to think for themselves.

Fetzer's thread on Judyth
Post by bpete1969
in Exile is a perfect example. Funny thing that her biggest untruth is
there and no one caught it at the time.
What is that?
bpete1969
2017-06-05 01:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay
of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?
And yes -- you would have to cover that up!
No, not if the "star witness" recanted none of her key testimony.
Not about Oswald having a rifle.
Not about Oswald admitting he shot at Walker.
Not about having taken the Backyard Photos.
Not about knowing a rifle was in a blanket in the Paine garage.
Not about Oswald going to Mexico City.
Simple fact: Marina's *opinion* means nothing. What she saw and
heard does.
Further, Judyth is not the minion of any "cover up." She is a mentally
unbalanced lady who loves the attention her charade gets her.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Were that to be the case, there would be no need for closing the door to
discussion, would there?
You are the one who wanted to close the door to discussion of Judyth
until you had completed your "process."
You actually believed you had the right to tell people to shut up
until you said they could speak.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Everyone acknowledges that Marina is the star of the WCR. Now, all we are
supposed to be left with is her 'opinion'? Rather dismissive.
You are dismissive of her testimony of actual events that she
witnessed.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Marian recanted her thinking that LHO fired the shots that killed JFK.
In fact, she thinks he was set up. A patsy.
Yep, under the influence of buffs who indoctrinated her.
But she has never retracted any of her testimony.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Have to agree with John on this one. You were quite dismissive of anyone
questioning Judyth on her inconsistencies at the Ed Forum.
False. I did do my best to post the inaccuracies in the logic of some of
those attacking Judyth without using logic or documentation.
Post by bpete1969
Luckily it's all still there for anyone to see.
Agree. Let's allow people to think for themselves.
Fetzer's thread on Judyth
Post by bpete1969
in Exile is a perfect example. Funny thing that her biggest untruth is
there and no one caught it at the time.
What is that?
The fact that she stated through your old buddy Fetzer that she met Oswald
at 8:30 in the morning. 6 years earlier, she stated to John Simkin that
she met Oswald at the Post Office at 1:00pm.

Talk about not reading posts, it was all spelled out 3 days ago in a post
directed specifically to you...

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/nhOd8P3Opgg
Bud
2017-06-05 01:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay
of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?
And yes -- you would have to cover that up!
No, not if the "star witness" recanted none of her key testimony.
Not about Oswald having a rifle.
Not about Oswald admitting he shot at Walker.
Not about having taken the Backyard Photos.
Not about knowing a rifle was in a blanket in the Paine garage.
Not about Oswald going to Mexico City.
Simple fact: Marina's *opinion* means nothing. What she saw and
heard does.
Further, Judyth is not the minion of any "cover up." She is a mentally
unbalanced lady who loves the attention her charade gets her.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Were that to be the case, there would be no need for closing the door to
discussion, would there?
You are the one who wanted to close the door to discussion of Judyth
until you had completed your "process."
You actually believed you had the right to tell people to shut up
until you said they could speak.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Everyone acknowledges that Marina is the star of the WCR. Now, all we are
supposed to be left with is her 'opinion'? Rather dismissive.
You are dismissive of her testimony of actual events that she
witnessed.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Marian recanted her thinking that LHO fired the shots that killed JFK.
In fact, she thinks he was set up. A patsy.
Yep, under the influence of buffs who indoctrinated her.
But she has never retracted any of her testimony.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Have to agree with John on this one. You were quite dismissive of anyone
questioning Judyth on her inconsistencies at the Ed Forum.
False. I did do my best to post the inaccuracies in the logic of some of
those attacking Judyth without using logic or documentation.
Are you riding a snow white unicorn in these fantasies of yours?

This link should tell anyone all they need to know about your
"historical processes"...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/1VnijHTyWYI/9FLLKx57mYkJ

Was it logical to spin, erect strawmen and misdirect to make a clearly
black and white issue appear gray?

As far as your reliance on documentation, when the document that Martin
produced showed that Judyth was denied asylum, and the guidelines for
Swedish asylum were produced, was it logical to go running for the
dictionary definition of "asylum" to try and parse a loophole for Judyth?
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Luckily it's all still there for anyone to see.
Agree. Let's allow people to think for themselves.
Fetzer's thread on Judyth
Post by bpete1969
in Exile is a perfect example. Funny thing that her biggest untruth is
there and no one caught it at the time.
What is that?
bpete1969
2017-05-27 23:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility -- wait! was that the only reason she begged me to become
part of her 'team' to begin with? -- but for outlining a far deeper
cover-up of the assassination of JFK that anything I could have possibly
imagined. In fact, were it not for the duplicity and utter historical
depravity of Judyth and her story, I might have uncovered this phenomenon
and have been unable to believe that it might be true! Suffice it to say,
I am using the key concept that I have uncovered in one of my upcoming
books on the JFK assassination -- no, not the limo book -- that will
follow more traditional concepts -- but the book In Broad Daylight that
has haunted me since my first trip to Dallas in 1997.
Basically, what does this concept consist of? Let me give you a preview.
First of all, however, I must say that I will be putting forth an
hypothesis, which I will then demonstrate. That does not mean that I am
trying to force anyone to 'believe' anything. Instead, I hope to persuade
you that my position has merit.
My hypothesis starts with the axiom that Judyth's only significance in the
JFK research community is that of a counterfeit Marina. Her entire intent,
right from the start, was to overshadow and replace Marina. We are
supposed to stop thinking about Marina. In fact, we are to forget Marine
even existed.
Why is this? Let me tell you.
What happened to Marina during the 1980's? Can we recall?
Let's think….hmmm….
Marina recanted.
Marina, who had once been convinced (by what she had been shown) that Lee
Oswald was guilty, had now read the 27 volumes of WCR Hearings and
Exhibits, and she decided he was innocent.
Oh yeah <yawn> you may say…we already know that. No big deal.
Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay
of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?
And yes -- you would have to cover that up!
So in slithers Judyth to divide the research community and make waves
wherever she goes, turning everyone's preconceived concepts upside
down…
And the rest, as we say, is history -- or, in this case, pseudo-history…
Thank you, Judyth!
http://findingjudyth.blogspot.com/2017/05/who-knew-0.html
Pamela Brown
All of the evidence of Judyth Very Faker's has been out there for years.

Her emancipation from her parents....didn't happen.
Her "technically illegal" enrollment in the Univ. of Florida....didn't
happen.

And the only lie that matters...didn't happen.

http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-29 01:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the
dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy
my credibility -- wait! was that the only reason she begged me to become
part of her 'team' to begin with? -- but for outlining a far deeper
cover-up of the assassination of JFK that anything I could have possibly
imagined. In fact, were it not for the duplicity and utter historical
depravity of Judyth and her story, I might have uncovered this phenomenon
and have been unable to believe that it might be true! Suffice it to say,
I am using the key concept that I have uncovered in one of my upcoming
books on the JFK assassination -- no, not the limo book -- that will
follow more traditional concepts -- but the book In Broad Daylight that
has haunted me since my first trip to Dallas in 1997.
Basically, what does this concept consist of? Let me give you a preview.
First of all, however, I must say that I will be putting forth an
hypothesis, which I will then demonstrate. That does not mean that I am
trying to force anyone to 'believe' anything. Instead, I hope to persuade
you that my position has merit.
My hypothesis starts with the axiom that Judyth's only significance in the
JFK research community is that of a counterfeit Marina. Her entire intent,
right from the start, was to overshadow and replace Marina. We are
supposed to stop thinking about Marina. In fact, we are to forget Marine
even existed.
Why is this? Let me tell you.
What happened to Marina during the 1980's? Can we recall?
Let's think….hmmm….
Marina recanted.
Marina, who had once been convinced (by what she had been shown) that Lee
Oswald was guilty, had now read the 27 volumes of WCR Hearings and
Exhibits, and she decided he was innocent.
Oh yeah <yawn> you may say…we already know that. No big deal.
Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay
of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?
And yes -- you would have to cover that up!
So in slithers Judyth to divide the research community and make waves
wherever she goes, turning everyone's preconceived concepts upside
down…
Operation Chaos. Like the leader of the womens movement being a CIA
agent informing on everyone else.
Post by j***@gmail.com
And the rest, as we say, is history -- or, in this case, pseudo-history…
Thank you, Judyth!
http://findingjudyth.blogspot.com/2017/05/who-knew-0.html
Pamela Brown
Alex Foyle
2017-05-29 22:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Marina recanted.
She never recanted any of her testimonies or what is written in "Marina &
Lee". After Stone's "JFK" came out she understably had doubts about her
husbands guilt, but she never recanted any of her important statements
about her husband.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-30 19:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Foyle
Post by j***@gmail.com
Marina recanted.
She never recanted any of her testimonies or what is written in "Marina &
Lee". After Stone's "JFK" came out she understably had doubts about her
husbands guilt, but she never recanted any of her important statements
about her husband.
How do you know? You've never talked to her.
Alex Foyle
2017-06-01 23:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
How do you know? You've never talked to her.
Neither have you and the fact remains that she never recanted any of her
vital testimony from the WC, Orleans Parish Grand Jury or HSCA.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-02 17:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Foyle
Post by Anthony Marsh
How do you know? You've never talked to her.
Neither have you and the fact remains that she never recanted any of her
vital testimony from the WC, Orleans Parish Grand Jury or HSCA.
Excuse me, punk?
I talked to Marina when she came to Cambridge for our conference.
I said nothing about recanting, Nr. Straw man.
Alex Foyle
2017-06-06 03:29:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
I talked to Marina when she came to Cambridge for our conference.
If you say so it must be true.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I said nothing about recanting, Nr. Straw man.
Because she never did recant which is the issue at hand.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-07 19:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Foyle
Post by Anthony Marsh
I talked to Marina when she came to Cambridge for our conference.
If you say so it must be true.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I said nothing about recanting, Nr. Straw man.
Because she never did recant which is the issue at hand.
No, I never said anything about recanting. What do you want her to recant?
Alex Foyle
2017-06-09 00:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
No, I never said anything about recanting. What do you want her to recant?
That's because you never care what the thread is actually about or what
the issue at hand is, true troll style, just attack. This is what you
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Marina recanted.
She never recanted any of her testimonies or what is written in "Marina &
Lee". After Stone's "JFK" came out she understably had doubts about her
husbands guilt, but she never recanted any of her important statements
about her husband.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-09 20:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Foyle
Post by Anthony Marsh
No, I never said anything about recanting. What do you want her to recant?
That's because you never care what the thread is actually about or what
the issue at hand is, true troll style, just attack. This is what you
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Marina recanted.
She never recanted any of her testimonies or what is written in "Marina &
Lee". After Stone's "JFK" came out she understably had doubts about her
husbands guilt, but she never recanted any of her important statements
about her husband.
Did I ever say anything about recant? No. All you can do is make up
phony arguments.
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-09 02:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Foyle
Post by Anthony Marsh
I talked to Marina when she came to Cambridge for our conference.
If you say so it must be true.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I said nothing about recanting, Nr. Straw man.
Because she never did recant which is the issue at hand.
What do you call Marina saying she now believes Lee did not fire the
shots?
Alex Foyle
2017-06-10 01:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
What do you call Marina saying she now believes Lee did not fire the
shots?
That was her opinion after the Stone JFK circus, I don't think she would
say that today anymore.

Regardless, I was referring to her important testimony about the rifle,
the Walker shooting and the backyard photos. She has never recanted any of
that.
John McAdams
2017-06-02 18:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Foyle
Post by Anthony Marsh
How do you know? You've never talked to her.
Neither have you and the fact remains that she never recanted any of her
vital testimony from the WC, Orleans Parish Grand Jury or HSCA.
Gerald Posner called up Marina, and she told him she didn't believe
Oswald shot Kennedy because "he couldn't have gotten off those shots
in the time allowed." (Paraphrasing)

But this is something she actually knows nothing about. It's
something she's been told by buffs.

Her mere opinions don't matter:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/opinions.htm

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-03 12:45:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Alex Foyle
Post by Anthony Marsh
How do you know? You've never talked to her.
Neither have you and the fact remains that she never recanted any of her
vital testimony from the WC, Orleans Parish Grand Jury or HSCA.
Gerald Posner called up Marina, and she told him she didn't believe
Oswald shot Kennedy because "he couldn't have gotten off those shots
in the time allowed." (Paraphrasing)
But this is something she actually knows nothing about. It's
something she's been told by buffs.
Exactly. Especiallly Lifton and others who made up false stories.
Neither do yours.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/opinions.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2017-06-02 21:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Foyle
Post by j***@gmail.com
Marina recanted.
She never recanted any of her testimonies or what is written in "Marina &
Lee". After Stone's "JFK" came out she understably had doubts about her
husbands guilt, but she never recanted any of her important statements
about her husband.
Why would she? To tell the truth now would only start a firestorm of
reporters after her.

Chris
Bud
2017-06-03 00:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Alex Foyle
Post by j***@gmail.com
Marina recanted.
She never recanted any of her testimonies or what is written in "Marina &
Lee". After Stone's "JFK" came out she understably had doubts about her
husbands guilt, but she never recanted any of her important statements
about her husband.
Why would she? To tell the truth now would only start a firestorm of
reporters after her.
Chris
Perhaps everything you think about this case is fueled by a frantic
desperation to believe Oswald was innocent.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-03 12:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Alex Foyle
Post by j***@gmail.com
Marina recanted.
She never recanted any of her testimonies or what is written in "Marina &
Lee". After Stone's "JFK" came out she understably had doubts about her
husbands guilt, but she never recanted any of her important statements
about her husband.
Why would she? To tell the truth now would only start a firestorm of
reporters after her.
UH? Is there always a firestorm of reporters? No.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Loading...