03-04-2010, 06:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-04-2010, 06:13 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
Jack,
Not to place too fine a point upon it, but if you review this entire thread, you would find
that, while you have lodged many complaints about Judyth, when I have examined them,
none--not one!--has panned out. Now I am going to prepare an index that identifies the
posts where allegations are made, the names of those who lodged them, and the posts
where they have been discussed and evaluated. Then we can review the bidding. But,
as I have explained in several posts, the claims that have been advanced against her
by many participants here appear to hold very little water and, for the most part, have
come up completely dry. Lots of fallacies are being committed, as I shall also explain,
but the fact that you do not believe Judyth does not mean she is not believable. And,
as I have also observed, Ed Balsam, Nigel Turner, Jim Marrs and I, among others, all
believe in Judyth. Maybe we are wrong and you are right, but I would appreciate it
if you would be sufficiently objective to acknowledge that there is just the barest of
possibilities that maybe we are right and you and David, among others, are wrong.
Indeed, the weight of the evidence as it is accumulating here supports that outcome.
Jim
P.S. You take on Robert as you lay it out in post #378 and elsewhere, in my view, is
far more incredible--truly unbelievable!--than anything I've ever heard from Judyth!
To me, Robert looks like a weakling who envied his brother and was glad to have the
chance to "outsmart" him. No one who cared about his brother could be so careless
with the truth when it comes to embracing that other fantasy, THE WARREN REPORT.
[quote name='Jack White' post='188641' date='Apr 3 2010, 03:26 PM']
[quote name='Linda Minor' post='188639' date='Apr 3 2010, 01:56 PM']
[quote name='Jack White' post='188302' date='Mar 31 2010, 06:06 AM']
Monk...
Many JVB claims appear "plausible" and some cannot be "refuted", simply because all are
her OPINIONS, things she SAYS she witnessed, without proof offered. I do not care whether
her tales are true or not.
Some of her tales are irrelevant. What is the relevance to JFK studies if she claims an illicit
affair with a man she just met? What does it matter that she thinks she resembles Marina?
What does it matter that she thinks she and LHO pledged to meet somewhere in Mexico and
explore ancient ruins? What does it matter that she claims to have personally met Shaw,
Banister, Ferrie, Ochsner, Sherman, etc. etc.? Her knowing these well documented figures
adds NOTHING to the information already known. Her information changes frequently as
it suits her purpose. I will even grant that if everything she says is true it does not amount
to a bigratsass in the overall study of the investigation. Cancun or Kan Kun...who cares?
Thanks, Monk.
Jack[/quote]
Jack,
Your definition of "information" and mine vary considerably. I am interested in history and the way our American government violates the rule of law set forth in the Constitution by using cutouts and compartmentalized intelligence operatives who are trained not to question their handlers. This is the only reason I have ever studied the assassination. I do not get excited about bullet trajectories or faked photos or any of those elements of physical evidence because none of that explains to me how the system (what I tend to refer to as the infrastructure) of the entire secretive intelligence operation works, and by whom it is directed. In other words, I myself do not focus on trees, but on the forest, to use a trite metaphor.
For that purpose, what Judyth tells is more essential to my historical research than anything since the information presented by Dick Russell about Richard Case Nagell.
We all have a focus on different aspects, fortunately, but we tend to weigh the importance of these interests differently and, consequently and unfortunately, often impute personal motives to those with whom we differ. I have attempted previously to insert remarks about why Judyth's information is extremely significant, at least to me, because of the historical context it provides. But there was no response made. My comments were ignored, and that is fine with me; but my research will continue nonetheless.
[/quote]
Linda, I agree IF HER TALES ARE FACTUAL. To me they seem to be largely FICTIONAL.
Fiction has popular appeal, but it is not history. GONE WITH THE WIND is great HISTORICAL
FICTION about the Civil War, and gives some idea what the people went through, and presents
facts mixed with romance. The JFK case does not need a GWTW approach about the romance
of Romeo and Juliet as imagined by JVB. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
Jack
[/quote]
Not to place too fine a point upon it, but if you review this entire thread, you would find
that, while you have lodged many complaints about Judyth, when I have examined them,
none--not one!--has panned out. Now I am going to prepare an index that identifies the
posts where allegations are made, the names of those who lodged them, and the posts
where they have been discussed and evaluated. Then we can review the bidding. But,
as I have explained in several posts, the claims that have been advanced against her
by many participants here appear to hold very little water and, for the most part, have
come up completely dry. Lots of fallacies are being committed, as I shall also explain,
but the fact that you do not believe Judyth does not mean she is not believable. And,
as I have also observed, Ed Balsam, Nigel Turner, Jim Marrs and I, among others, all
believe in Judyth. Maybe we are wrong and you are right, but I would appreciate it
if you would be sufficiently objective to acknowledge that there is just the barest of
possibilities that maybe we are right and you and David, among others, are wrong.
Indeed, the weight of the evidence as it is accumulating here supports that outcome.
Jim
P.S. You take on Robert as you lay it out in post #378 and elsewhere, in my view, is
far more incredible--truly unbelievable!--than anything I've ever heard from Judyth!
To me, Robert looks like a weakling who envied his brother and was glad to have the
chance to "outsmart" him. No one who cared about his brother could be so careless
with the truth when it comes to embracing that other fantasy, THE WARREN REPORT.
[quote name='Jack White' post='188641' date='Apr 3 2010, 03:26 PM']
[quote name='Linda Minor' post='188639' date='Apr 3 2010, 01:56 PM']
[quote name='Jack White' post='188302' date='Mar 31 2010, 06:06 AM']
Monk...
Many JVB claims appear "plausible" and some cannot be "refuted", simply because all are
her OPINIONS, things she SAYS she witnessed, without proof offered. I do not care whether
her tales are true or not.
Some of her tales are irrelevant. What is the relevance to JFK studies if she claims an illicit
affair with a man she just met? What does it matter that she thinks she resembles Marina?
What does it matter that she thinks she and LHO pledged to meet somewhere in Mexico and
explore ancient ruins? What does it matter that she claims to have personally met Shaw,
Banister, Ferrie, Ochsner, Sherman, etc. etc.? Her knowing these well documented figures
adds NOTHING to the information already known. Her information changes frequently as
it suits her purpose. I will even grant that if everything she says is true it does not amount
to a bigratsass in the overall study of the investigation. Cancun or Kan Kun...who cares?
Thanks, Monk.
Jack[/quote]
Jack,
Your definition of "information" and mine vary considerably. I am interested in history and the way our American government violates the rule of law set forth in the Constitution by using cutouts and compartmentalized intelligence operatives who are trained not to question their handlers. This is the only reason I have ever studied the assassination. I do not get excited about bullet trajectories or faked photos or any of those elements of physical evidence because none of that explains to me how the system (what I tend to refer to as the infrastructure) of the entire secretive intelligence operation works, and by whom it is directed. In other words, I myself do not focus on trees, but on the forest, to use a trite metaphor.
For that purpose, what Judyth tells is more essential to my historical research than anything since the information presented by Dick Russell about Richard Case Nagell.
We all have a focus on different aspects, fortunately, but we tend to weigh the importance of these interests differently and, consequently and unfortunately, often impute personal motives to those with whom we differ. I have attempted previously to insert remarks about why Judyth's information is extremely significant, at least to me, because of the historical context it provides. But there was no response made. My comments were ignored, and that is fine with me; but my research will continue nonetheless.
[/quote]
Linda, I agree IF HER TALES ARE FACTUAL. To me they seem to be largely FICTIONAL.
Fiction has popular appeal, but it is not history. GONE WITH THE WIND is great HISTORICAL
FICTION about the Civil War, and gives some idea what the people went through, and presents
facts mixed with romance. The JFK case does not need a GWTW approach about the romance
of Romeo and Juliet as imagined by JVB. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
Jack
[/quote]