04-05-2010, 09:25 PM
JIM REPLIES TO THE ANTI-JUDYTH VARY BAKER CULT OF LIFTON/WELDON/WHITE/JUNKKARINEN
NOTE: I love this Lifton/Weldon/White/Junkkarinen "brain trust". No matter what we provide in the form of refutations of specific claims, like this Lifton nonsense about "Cancun/Kankun", the myths persist. This does not appear to be a research effort but the performance of a cult, where the method of tenacity prevails, which is not going to change its mind, no matter what the evidence. This is a self-preservation exercise. What more can we do than repost previous replies:
Judyth and I have discussed this and I don't know why you think you can discredit her on this basis. QUOTE 1 is the basic story: she had told her agent at the time, Peter Cox, that they were going to meet in the Yucatan in the vicinity of Chichen Itz. Lee had not used the name "Cancun", which, as you have observed, did not exist other than in the form of the village of Kankun. She put her finger on a map at his request and he said, "Oh, Cancun!", and ran with it. Since in QUOTE 2 Shackelford said what had happened (how the misunderstanding had arisen), there is certainly no inconsistency there. And QUOTE 3 is one where Judyth is being more specific about what they (she and Lee) had actually discussed, where QUOTE 4 expands on their tentative plans. Mexico is a predominantly Catholic country, of course, so they would expect to be married by a priest. There is nothing here that impugns the integrity of Judyth. On the other hand, this appears to me to be a nice example of TRYING TO CREATE A CONFLICT rather than TRYING TO SORT THINGS OUT. I discussed each of the quotes with Judyth and, the more we talked about it, the more it became apparent to me that this arose from violating the condition of translation known as "the principle of charity", where you should (in ordinary conversational contexts) look for interpretations that make what you are being told come out to be true. Instead, you and your allies are looking for an interpretation that makes what you are being to told come out false. But it all hangs together the right way. I have done a YouTube interview with Judyth about this, which I recommend to everyone. This is a great to-do about nothing.
[quote name='David Lifton' post='191407' date='May 1 2010, 11:37 AM']Dixie,
Thanks for your post, and especially this part:
QUOTE:
In addition, there has been a whole lot of past discussion regarding the CanCun story, as David Lifton has mentioned.... . . after she learned there was no CanCun Resort at that time, she denied ever saying that. Then later she claimed it was her past agent that added it and she had only meant the CanCun area, since she didn't feel anyone would know where nearby Chichen Itza was. (It is not all that nearby though). So, then a woman on the discussion group posted some info that the Village of KanKun had been there for many, many years and she even had a link to an old map, showing it. In addition, that same woman mentioned there had been a nice hotel in Chichen Itza for years....the Mayaland Hotel. Up until that point, Judyth was still denying she ever said it was a fine hotel in CanCun. But suddenly with that new info and after mentioning various places they intended to visit, she ran with it....and later appeared in her book, as her own claim. Now she insists that she had always known about the old Village of KanKun. If so, it never came up until that woman appeared with that info....then sudenly she had always known it and what she meant when speaking to David L. I just do not buy that, at that point in time, when she spoke to him. UNQUOTE
If you can ever come up with the actual Internet posts --including the date(s)--of the woman who volunteered this information (i.e., who discovered "Kankun", and posted that data) I would appreciate having these details. They mark an important "inflection point" in the evolution of her story. Because they demonstrate exactly how Judyth operates, and how she bobs and weaves around the existing record. In this instance, first she tap danced around the major gaffe she had committed; and then, when she learned of "Kankun," she immediateley adjusted/changed her story to incorporate the new-found information. That's precisely how she handles inconsistencies, "making it up" as the goes along. She evinces the psychology (and even the methodology) of a combination of producer and screenwriter of her own fictions, who, when a gaffe has occurred in a film shoot, respondings by saying, "Oh well, we'll fix that in the editing room."
In this case, the "editing room" is the fertile imagination of Judyth's mind.
This would all be very amusing if it were not the case that this lady if hawking a completely fictional history of a major aspect of the Kennedy assassination, duping many who should know better, and, in addition, besmirching the true character of someone she claims to have loved.
I'm not surprised that someone who claims to have seen the Zapruder film at a New York City theater, in the fall of 1964 (when it was clearly under lock and key, and obviously not being screened at any New York City theater) should rush to her defense, but I would think most people, without an agenda, and with a modicum of good judgment, would know better, and behave accordingly.
What total nonsense.
DSL
5/1/10 2:25 AM
Los Angeles, CA[/quote]
NOTE: I love this Lifton/Weldon/White/Junkkarinen "brain trust". No matter what we provide in the form of refutations of specific claims, like this Lifton nonsense about "Cancun/Kankun", the myths persist. This does not appear to be a research effort but the performance of a cult, where the method of tenacity prevails, which is not going to change its mind, no matter what the evidence. This is a self-preservation exercise. What more can we do than repost previous replies:
Judyth and I have discussed this and I don't know why you think you can discredit her on this basis. QUOTE 1 is the basic story: she had told her agent at the time, Peter Cox, that they were going to meet in the Yucatan in the vicinity of Chichen Itz. Lee had not used the name "Cancun", which, as you have observed, did not exist other than in the form of the village of Kankun. She put her finger on a map at his request and he said, "Oh, Cancun!", and ran with it. Since in QUOTE 2 Shackelford said what had happened (how the misunderstanding had arisen), there is certainly no inconsistency there. And QUOTE 3 is one where Judyth is being more specific about what they (she and Lee) had actually discussed, where QUOTE 4 expands on their tentative plans. Mexico is a predominantly Catholic country, of course, so they would expect to be married by a priest. There is nothing here that impugns the integrity of Judyth. On the other hand, this appears to me to be a nice example of TRYING TO CREATE A CONFLICT rather than TRYING TO SORT THINGS OUT. I discussed each of the quotes with Judyth and, the more we talked about it, the more it became apparent to me that this arose from violating the condition of translation known as "the principle of charity", where you should (in ordinary conversational contexts) look for interpretations that make what you are being told come out to be true. Instead, you and your allies are looking for an interpretation that makes what you are being to told come out false. But it all hangs together the right way. I have done a YouTube interview with Judyth about this, which I recommend to everyone. This is a great to-do about nothing.
[quote name='David Lifton' post='191407' date='May 1 2010, 11:37 AM']Dixie,
Thanks for your post, and especially this part:
QUOTE:
In addition, there has been a whole lot of past discussion regarding the CanCun story, as David Lifton has mentioned.... . . after she learned there was no CanCun Resort at that time, she denied ever saying that. Then later she claimed it was her past agent that added it and she had only meant the CanCun area, since she didn't feel anyone would know where nearby Chichen Itza was. (It is not all that nearby though). So, then a woman on the discussion group posted some info that the Village of KanKun had been there for many, many years and she even had a link to an old map, showing it. In addition, that same woman mentioned there had been a nice hotel in Chichen Itza for years....the Mayaland Hotel. Up until that point, Judyth was still denying she ever said it was a fine hotel in CanCun. But suddenly with that new info and after mentioning various places they intended to visit, she ran with it....and later appeared in her book, as her own claim. Now she insists that she had always known about the old Village of KanKun. If so, it never came up until that woman appeared with that info....then sudenly she had always known it and what she meant when speaking to David L. I just do not buy that, at that point in time, when she spoke to him. UNQUOTE
If you can ever come up with the actual Internet posts --including the date(s)--of the woman who volunteered this information (i.e., who discovered "Kankun", and posted that data) I would appreciate having these details. They mark an important "inflection point" in the evolution of her story. Because they demonstrate exactly how Judyth operates, and how she bobs and weaves around the existing record. In this instance, first she tap danced around the major gaffe she had committed; and then, when she learned of "Kankun," she immediateley adjusted/changed her story to incorporate the new-found information. That's precisely how she handles inconsistencies, "making it up" as the goes along. She evinces the psychology (and even the methodology) of a combination of producer and screenwriter of her own fictions, who, when a gaffe has occurred in a film shoot, respondings by saying, "Oh well, we'll fix that in the editing room."
In this case, the "editing room" is the fertile imagination of Judyth's mind.
This would all be very amusing if it were not the case that this lady if hawking a completely fictional history of a major aspect of the Kennedy assassination, duping many who should know better, and, in addition, besmirching the true character of someone she claims to have loved.
I'm not surprised that someone who claims to have seen the Zapruder film at a New York City theater, in the fall of 1964 (when it was clearly under lock and key, and obviously not being screened at any New York City theater) should rush to her defense, but I would think most people, without an agenda, and with a modicum of good judgment, would know better, and behave accordingly.
What total nonsense.
DSL
5/1/10 2:25 AM
Los Angeles, CA[/quote]