Jump to content
The Education Forum

howpl

Members
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

2,695 profile views

howpl's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. Look, people, it comes down to the evidence, a concept much more complex than most JFK researchers seem to think. It is a matter not of how many things Judyth gets wrong (Anna Lewis and Judyth disagreed about details, but Anna made and reiterated her support in the face of serious intimidation). It is a matter of: (1) How well the totality of her testimony and documents explains mysteries that haunt the case better than any other extant story. For one of many instances, her explanation of the Clinton-Jackson witnesses is far more believable than any that has been offered elsewhere, even by Joan Mellen who brags that this is her expertise yet delivers a story that is ultimately incoherent. (2) How well it predicts future finds and generates productive leads. In fact, her story of Clinton-Jackson "predicted" 60 Minutes' finding of an FBI report that Garrison was about to indict Alton Ochsner. Though king of INCA, his name has not come up in connection with any conspiracy to kill anyone. In fact, he was conspiring to kill Castro, with Judyth's help. but Garrison never quite figured this out -- it is fascinating to read his Playboy interview that includes musings about Ferrie and a bioweapon aimed at Castro. The research community needs to go back to school. Standards for what count as evidence -- and for how much evidence is enough evidence -- are generally lacking in those who consider themselves professional researchers, whereas so many of them are just plain not (pace Jim, Jack White's maunderings have always struct me as below par). As for whose anti-Judyth work deserves serious attention, I am inclined to think that Barb J holds first place. She has actually made phone calls and spoken to witnesses (not to Judyth, alas). The problem with Barb is that she doesn't realize that what she found fundamentally supports Judyth's claims! Barb tried to refute Judyth's claim that she did any serious work at Roswell when, in fact, she proved the opposite. Judyth was heartbroken over the loss of the paper she wrote based on her Roswell studies. In the end, Barb found the abstract to the paper. I thanked her for her diligence and contribution to the cause. She didn't seem to understand -- or didn't want to. Barb did confirm that Judyth got into trouble for trying to move from her isolated quarters at Roswell to where the other young scholars were living that summer -- a story, BTW, she related to me in 1999. Barb believes that Judyth was tossed out of the program for this violation. Judyth insists she was merely reprimanded. But this is a red herring. What is important is that Barb turned up the paper's abstract. I find it almost funny that she should commend herself for not burying her finding -- for being a principled researcher! (Shouldn't that go without boasting? Perhaps not in the JFK research community.) She might as well have buried it since her tack after producing it was to run as fast as she could in the opposite direction (kind of like what Mellen did). So Barb ends up dancing around the only issue of real importance: the existence and content of the abstract and how it might be related to what Judyth was to do in 1963. Ever the steadfast researcher, she interviewed a goodly horde of people. She sought the opinions of other students, the fellow Mirand who was most peeved at her for seeking less isolated digs, ex-high-school acquaintances, et al. Judyth may not have been universally liked (much as she may have wanted to be) because she was not a typical girl. She was a wunderkind, with all kinds of self-confidence. Maybe they saw her as odd. I'm sure they never understood why she was physically separated from the other students (I'm not sure even whether Judyth herself understood at the time). Too, she was the only one who worked directly with the Center's director, George Moore (whose own history is startlingly relevant to what Judyth was to do in 1963). But why should we care about ANY of this? Barb found the abstract, and it shows that Judyth did the work she claimed she did, whatever else she did or didn't do. Frankly, it matters not a whit if she never got an official certificate for completing the program (point of argument, not point conceded). Papers speak louder than certificates. I'm sure I still have a science fair certificate in my basement somewhere. PLEASE ASK BARB TO SUMMARIZE HER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PAPER THAT JUDYTH WROTE. You will find, as I did, that she is not up to it (although she has had a couple of years to examine it since she found it) -- which renders hollow her initial insistence that the Roswell sojourn was probably no more significant than a prolonged student science fair. Judyth may not have presented the paper to the field's leading lights; still, she presented the paper to professionals -- while, unfortunately, misremembering the precise name of the group that sponsored her lecture, another red herring Barb was only too happy to use to obscure the true impact of her findings. Although we don't have the paper itself, the existing abstract gives one a sense of the content and sophistication of the work she did. So, somebody should ask Barb, as I did to no avail, what was the paper about? Does Barb care to engage Judyth in public dialogue on the subject? Judyth should have been Barb's first interviewee. Were she, she may have been the last. Barb never considered actually talking to the witness she made it her mission to trash! Is that how "real researchers" conduct their business? Howard
  2. Greg So its ok for Jim to post some silly Psy-Op garbage attacking Jack from an unkown person Why is it ok for Jim to do that but not ok for Jack? I dont understand
  3. Greg So its ok for Jim to post some silly Psy-Op garbage attacking Jack from an unkown person Why is it ok for Jim to do that but not ok for Jack? I dont understand
  4. Jack, Did I read you right? Judyth concocted her story out of sexual frustration?!!!! This is what you've come up with after having Judyth, Jim, et al. box you into a corner post after post for weeks now? Hey, if everyone who is sexually frustrated did as you claim Judyth has done, then every reputed villain in living history would have a veritable harum of groupies. I would call this claim dime-store psychology, but it's hardly worth a plug nickel. It is, indeed, a spurious and downright shameful evasion of substantive issues and evidence, bordering, if not crossing the border, into character assassination. And then you deliver the coup d'grace: all those cards and letters coming in opining, of course, that Judyth's story is balderdash. Waving your e-mails in the air (sans the names of senders and recountings of their arguments) is too uncomfortably close to McCarthyism not to point out the resemblance. How about letting Judyth and those who have vetted her deeply and extensively know the names of those who would accuse us of being shoddy researchers or, worse, con artists. After watching this flogging go on for 10 years, on the basis of analyses about as trenchant as what has appeared in this forum, I thought I had seen every conceivable intellectual contortion. (I guess sexual frustration falls into the inconceivable category.) I pretty much know what school of criticism all these scholars adhere to -- the school that teaches how to weave predetermined conclusions out of endlessly told lies, misinterpretations, half-truths, micro-nitpicking, willful ignorance, glib put-downs, hearsay, and just plain nastiness. I have seen bits and pieces of the recent postings on Judyth on this forum, trying to decide whether I want to reenter the fray -- and ensure that the next 10 years age me 20 years, as the past 10 years have. I wore myself out as one researcher after the another, with some notable exceptions (Jim Fetzer is the latest), battered Judyth (and Martin Shackleford and me) with evasions and even silence (a notable example is John Simkin) when I wrote personally to each of them, mosttimes more than once, pleading for a give-and-take. My phone number has always been listed. Judyth's door has always been open (before she went into exile). Yet no critic EVER wrote or called. The list of names of those willing hide behind their computers and draw conclusions based on gut feeling or, worse, the conclusions of others who haven't themselves done the requisite research is long and depressing. To which I now have to add Jack White. You are not being fair to Judyth. I apologize for the anger in my tone. But I assure you, it is earned and justified. Howard
  5. I have known Judyth Baker for 5 years. (I also "know" dankbar from a usenet newsgroup, though we have never met.) I am writing this note in the hopes that this is a group of educators (as opposed to Prof. McAdams, the immoderate "moderator of that newsgroup) whose "article" on Ms. Baker, is a pile of trash. Pardon the immoderate language, but this nominal academic has been particularly destructive. Anyone who has spent the number of hours it takes to see Judyth's evidence and hear her story knows that she is the genuine article. McAdams never even met her, though her door was wide open and her telephone number widely circulated. I co-wrote a book with Judyth, and also spent 14 months going back and forth with 60M on their intention, stated quite emphatically on the last go-round, to do a segment favorable to her. As Don Hewitt later said on C-SPAN, "the door was slammed in our face." Now what do you think he meant by that. The forces arrayed against Don Hewitt - the godfather of investigative journalism (on TV at least) were that powerful. Both he and Wallace believe her story, but as the diligent Nigel Turner segment proved, you really do have to hear the WHOLE story and see the evidence in context. It was nice, and I am thankful for the courage he showed, but viewers should not have had to rely on the talking head alone. Unfortunately, so-called "researchers" in the JFK community, who spent little time interrogating her and viewing her evidence, have -- to protect their own books -- fought hard and fought dirty to sabotage both the book and the 60M show. They tried hard to stop Turner, too. This may surprise you, but the only thing that surprised me was the intensity of it. Who knew there were conspiracy theorists willing to go this far. Case in point: At the annual Lancer conference, held in Dallas, panelists have been informed that they may not discuss Ms. Baker's story. For this and other atrocities, the head of Lancer has disgraced the research community. I am sure that dankbar has joined this forum in the hopes of finding a true academic sanctuary where open discussion is treasured, not banned. As for me, I am not sure that I can respond in a detailed manner to questions that come up here. It has been a wild, tiring, and discouraging five-year ride. But I do want it on record somewhere that I believe Judyth Baker knew the real Lee Harvey Oswald. I believe it without a single doubt. As she told me at the outset, the truth is complicated, but it is logical. But nobody has time for complicated in today's world. It takes too much work. How does one reach responsible academics (unlike the History-for-Sale Channel's "Warren Commission" of LBJ experts, whose very existence should be an embarrassment and whose conclusions come preformed)? Is this the place? Howard
×
×
  • Create New...