10-04-2010, 05:11 AM
JUDYTH REPLIES TO A REASONABLE QUESTION FROM MICHAEL HOGAN
NOTE: Judyth apparently caught something that I had missed, namely: what she takes
to have been a "very reasonable question" concerning the book published by Harrison
Livingstone. It completely slipped by me, so I am pleased to be able to publish Judyth's
response and extend an apology to Michael for my utter failure to recognize the question.
JUDYTH REPLIES:
About the very reasonable question that has been broached, concerning the book, published by
Harrison Livingstone behind my back, which was an unauhorized edition due to many flaws and
problems, and why Ed Haslam could mention that my book was withdrawn without knowing that
it was an unauthorized book:
Here is how that happened:
I sent the press release out about the book at the end of July, 2006 to book publishers and some
press members, but did not want Martin Shackelford to be attacked by John McAdams and his crew:
Shackelford is a good researcher who has consistently defended me, and has for his efforts been
mercilessly vilified on McAdams' newsgroup.
So I didn't speak to researchers about why I forced Trafford to stop the printing of my book as
published by Harrison Livingstone. McAdams' clones were saying I got it printed myself at Kinko's.
That's their style.
It should be noted that Livingsone would not have personally published this book unless he thought
it was important. However, we argued over his editing job and the fact that I was not allowed to see
the final galleys: Livingsone is known to be a difficult man to work with.
Haslam heard about the book. I told him I stopped publication of the book, but I had been sent some
copies by Shackelford. I then sent him a copy. But I encountered a dilemma when it came to talking
about the book's problems to Haslam.
Shackelford and Livingstone wanted the true text to get into print as quickly as possible because some
thieves stole an unedited version of a book Dr. Platzman wrote, based on my emails. A lot was missing,
and some errors. Now it was in the hands of thieves. (They would end up sending it to people such as
McAdams, who now quote from this flawed version.)
Speed was more important to them than a good editing job, in my opinion. (Trine Day, this time, is doing
a good job.) In the end, Livingstone simply took it.
Martin preferred to support his old friend, to make a long story short.
I did not want to interfere, however, in any interviewng processes going on between Haslam and Shackelford.
Shackelford's treatment of me had nothing to do with his massive knowledge of the case. In addition, I did not
know Haslam was writing another book. It came as a complete surprise, or otherwise I would have warned
him about the unauthorized status of the book.
Because he kept asking questions, I knew that inaccuracies in the book of concern did not affect what Haslam
learned from me. I never told Haslam why I withdrew the book, because I did not want him to have any
prejudice against Mr. Shackelford.
My personal feelings were not as important as Shackelford's input to Haslam.
Shackelford is a fine researcher, whose knowledge of me and my history was largely accurate.
Shackelford occasionally had some odd misunderstandings: once he wrote that I had not been a Catholic. He
had never examined my early life, as Haslam did.
He was concerned only with the story of Oswald and me. Each researcher has his or her own style.
I hope this explains why I did not bring up why the book was withdrawn to Haslam. I don't think he ever knew
that Shackelford was involved in the matter. I don't know.
JVB
[quote name='Michael Hogan' post='189337' date='Apr 10 2010, 04:41 AM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189331' date='Apr 9 2010, 08:52 PM']
When I read this latest post, I picked up my copy and noticed that, while Michael
said that he had reread the appendix, "Judyth's Story", but apparently he ignored Chapter
13, The Witness, which he does not mention. I question the competence
of someone who claims to have read a book but forgets the key chapter in
relation to Judyth. (emphasis mine) It discusses "60 Minutes" enthusiasm for featuring her
on one of its programs, where it spend more time and money on her than
on any other prospective feature. So Michael might want to reread it, too.[/quote]
More than half my post dealt with the JVB Haslam said he encountered in 1972.
I quoted Haslam directly from Chapter 13. I describe Haslam's story as he wrote it.
All from Chapter 13. What's wrong with you, Jim?
earlier in this thread, you have no interest in a fair discussion on the subject of JVB.
You'd rather deflect posts by questioning motives or insulting the intelligence of the poster.
You're not really in an advantageous position to question other people's competence
when it comes to this subject. You didn't make one reply of substance in regard to my
original post. Not one.
You can rectify that by giving your take on my two questions above. You might want to
read Chapter 13 before answering.
Why don't you address your false and misleading use of the term "evasive?"
I can answer for you. When you are wrong, you prefer insults over facts. You prefer insinuations
and innuendo about others' competence over substance. You love to give advice and seldom take any.
You are on the right side of many issues. It's a shame. You could do so much better.
[/quote]
NOTE: Judyth apparently caught something that I had missed, namely: what she takes
to have been a "very reasonable question" concerning the book published by Harrison
Livingstone. It completely slipped by me, so I am pleased to be able to publish Judyth's
response and extend an apology to Michael for my utter failure to recognize the question.
JUDYTH REPLIES:
About the very reasonable question that has been broached, concerning the book, published by
Harrison Livingstone behind my back, which was an unauhorized edition due to many flaws and
problems, and why Ed Haslam could mention that my book was withdrawn without knowing that
it was an unauthorized book:
Here is how that happened:
I sent the press release out about the book at the end of July, 2006 to book publishers and some
press members, but did not want Martin Shackelford to be attacked by John McAdams and his crew:
Shackelford is a good researcher who has consistently defended me, and has for his efforts been
mercilessly vilified on McAdams' newsgroup.
So I didn't speak to researchers about why I forced Trafford to stop the printing of my book as
published by Harrison Livingstone. McAdams' clones were saying I got it printed myself at Kinko's.
That's their style.
It should be noted that Livingsone would not have personally published this book unless he thought
it was important. However, we argued over his editing job and the fact that I was not allowed to see
the final galleys: Livingsone is known to be a difficult man to work with.
Haslam heard about the book. I told him I stopped publication of the book, but I had been sent some
copies by Shackelford. I then sent him a copy. But I encountered a dilemma when it came to talking
about the book's problems to Haslam.
Shackelford and Livingstone wanted the true text to get into print as quickly as possible because some
thieves stole an unedited version of a book Dr. Platzman wrote, based on my emails. A lot was missing,
and some errors. Now it was in the hands of thieves. (They would end up sending it to people such as
McAdams, who now quote from this flawed version.)
Speed was more important to them than a good editing job, in my opinion. (Trine Day, this time, is doing
a good job.) In the end, Livingstone simply took it.
Martin preferred to support his old friend, to make a long story short.
I did not want to interfere, however, in any interviewng processes going on between Haslam and Shackelford.
Shackelford's treatment of me had nothing to do with his massive knowledge of the case. In addition, I did not
know Haslam was writing another book. It came as a complete surprise, or otherwise I would have warned
him about the unauthorized status of the book.
Because he kept asking questions, I knew that inaccuracies in the book of concern did not affect what Haslam
learned from me. I never told Haslam why I withdrew the book, because I did not want him to have any
prejudice against Mr. Shackelford.
My personal feelings were not as important as Shackelford's input to Haslam.
Shackelford is a fine researcher, whose knowledge of me and my history was largely accurate.
Shackelford occasionally had some odd misunderstandings: once he wrote that I had not been a Catholic. He
had never examined my early life, as Haslam did.
He was concerned only with the story of Oswald and me. Each researcher has his or her own style.
I hope this explains why I did not bring up why the book was withdrawn to Haslam. I don't think he ever knew
that Shackelford was involved in the matter. I don't know.
JVB
[quote name='Michael Hogan' post='189337' date='Apr 10 2010, 04:41 AM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189331' date='Apr 9 2010, 08:52 PM']
When I read this latest post, I picked up my copy and noticed that, while Michael
said that he had reread the appendix, "Judyth's Story", but apparently he ignored Chapter
13, The Witness, which he does not mention. I question the competence
of someone who claims to have read a book but forgets the key chapter in
relation to Judyth. (emphasis mine) It discusses "60 Minutes" enthusiasm for featuring her
on one of its programs, where it spend more time and money on her than
on any other prospective feature. So Michael might want to reread it, too.[/quote]
More than half my post dealt with the JVB Haslam said he encountered in 1972.
I quoted Haslam directly from Chapter 13. I describe Haslam's story as he wrote it.
All from Chapter 13. What's wrong with you, Jim?
Why do you think Haslam (living in New Orlean during the middle of the Garrison investigation)
showed so little interest in meeting with someone that said she knew Lee Harvey Oswald?
Why do you think Haslam made no mention of Baker's book being unauthorized by her,
when his book came out a year after hers did?
Your avoidance of those two elementary issues shows that, contrary to your words much showed so little interest in meeting with someone that said she knew Lee Harvey Oswald?
Why do you think Haslam made no mention of Baker's book being unauthorized by her,
when his book came out a year after hers did?
earlier in this thread, you have no interest in a fair discussion on the subject of JVB.
You'd rather deflect posts by questioning motives or insulting the intelligence of the poster.
You're not really in an advantageous position to question other people's competence
when it comes to this subject. You didn't make one reply of substance in regard to my
original post. Not one.
You can rectify that by giving your take on my two questions above. You might want to
read Chapter 13 before answering.
Why don't you address your false and misleading use of the term "evasive?"
I can answer for you. When you are wrong, you prefer insults over facts. You prefer insinuations
and innuendo about others' competence over substance. You love to give advice and seldom take any.
You are on the right side of many issues. It's a shame. You could do so much better.
[/quote]