11-04-2010, 02:24 AM
David,
While we both know that our different takes on Judyth has created tension in our (your and my) relationship, I would
observe that four conditions must be satisfied for an assertion A to qualify as a lie: one party (1) must assert A to be
the case, (2) when A is not the case, (3) yet the party is still asserting A deliberately, even though s/he knows that A is
false, and (4) with the intention to deceive their audience. Neither of you trusts the other, even remotely, where each
of you has "good reasons". But if Judyth sincerely believes what she has said, then that assertion does not satisfy the
third condition for properly qualifying as a lie. The word is used too freely within this community, where the fact that
someone is making an assertion that another party regards as false does not mean that the first party is committing a
lie. Based upon my interaction with Judyth, which has been overwhelmingly greater than your own, I have found her
to be painstakingly committed to getting things right, where she has corrected my own understanding on specific points
on more than one occasion. Indeed, I have found her commitment to "getting things right" extremely persuasive about
her integrity and truthfulness. I regard her as extremely scrupulous and therefore I will be very surprised if she has, in
fact, committed a lie. I regard the prospect that she was acting on a false belief as enormously more likely than that
she was deliberately distorting the truth, if, as you claim, she has asserted something that is actually false. So I will be
certain that she responds to this post as promptly as she can and, if she's made a mistake, ask her to apologize to you.
By the same token, however, if she sincerely believed what she was saying, you should extend an apology to her. OK?
Jim
[quote name='David Lifton' post='189353' date='Apr 10 2010, 11:23 AM']Judyth,
Re your statement concerning my 1991 filmed interview with Rachel Oswald, you write, QUOTE:He promised to help Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing. UNQUOTE
Judyth, you're a bald faced liar, and --as the saying goes--someone should wash your mouth out with soap.
As I have already noted, in a previous (and fairly detailed) post, explaining the full circumstances of my 1991 filmed interview with Rachel, in Austin:
1. Rachel Oswald consented to be interviewed by me, in 1991--an interview that was extremely detailed, ran about two hours; and covered many aspects of what it was like to grow up as the daughter of Lee Oswald. For that privilege, Rachel Oswald was paid about $1500.
2. A year later, HARDCOPY learned about this interview, and wanted to broadcast a small portion--about 5 minutes worth. Rachel was approached, consented, and was paid an additional $2500.
In sum, Rachel was paid a total of about $4,000 (at least, for I do not know the full arrangement) for a five minute broadcast version of her multi-hour interview with me.
In connection with that broadcast (or as a consequence, I do not remember the exact details), Rachel was also flown to Europe for about a week, all expenses paid, to the Netherlands.
Marina Oswald Porter, Rachel's mother, told me that Rachel was very pleased with the two hour 1991 interview, after it occurred.
Her stepfather, Kenneth Porter, told me that she banked the money and it helped accelerate her entry to graduate school. He, too, thanked me personally.
Flashing forward now a full year to the 1992 broadcast: Both Rachel and I were angry at the tasteless manner in which HARDCOPY used the few minutes they were licensed to use.
Returning now to your false charge: whether the show was up to par or not (and it definitely was not) Rachel received about $4,000.
To this day, some 18 years later, I have a signed copy of a release for the entire two hour interview, but only about 5 minutes have ever publicly been used.
As is often the case, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Returning now to your statement: "He promised to help Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing."
I repeat what I said at the outset of this post: This is a total falsehood, and your continued repetition of this false statement expose you as nothing but a cheap and uninformed liar. Further, very time you repeat this, I'm going to post a rebuttal, until you stop lying about it.
For whatever reason, Jim Fetzer insists on believing you, and has invested his self image and reputation in the rubbish you promote.
But I won't stand for your nonsense.
DSL
4/10/10; 2:10 AM PDT
Los Angeles, California
P.S. I could care less whether you now say you were referring to "Kan Kun" rather than "Cancun" in your March, 2000 conversation with me. You said "Cancun"--that is quite obvious--but if you can't
be trusted to relate the truth about whether someone was paid $4,000 in fees, for the use of several minutes of a 2 hour filmed interview, and instead promote the fiction they were paid nothing, etc.,
then I have no interest in anything else you have to say, for that incident alone provides an accurate barometer to your utter lack of truthfulness and connection to reality.[/quote]
While we both know that our different takes on Judyth has created tension in our (your and my) relationship, I would
observe that four conditions must be satisfied for an assertion A to qualify as a lie: one party (1) must assert A to be
the case, (2) when A is not the case, (3) yet the party is still asserting A deliberately, even though s/he knows that A is
false, and (4) with the intention to deceive their audience. Neither of you trusts the other, even remotely, where each
of you has "good reasons". But if Judyth sincerely believes what she has said, then that assertion does not satisfy the
third condition for properly qualifying as a lie. The word is used too freely within this community, where the fact that
someone is making an assertion that another party regards as false does not mean that the first party is committing a
lie. Based upon my interaction with Judyth, which has been overwhelmingly greater than your own, I have found her
to be painstakingly committed to getting things right, where she has corrected my own understanding on specific points
on more than one occasion. Indeed, I have found her commitment to "getting things right" extremely persuasive about
her integrity and truthfulness. I regard her as extremely scrupulous and therefore I will be very surprised if she has, in
fact, committed a lie. I regard the prospect that she was acting on a false belief as enormously more likely than that
she was deliberately distorting the truth, if, as you claim, she has asserted something that is actually false. So I will be
certain that she responds to this post as promptly as she can and, if she's made a mistake, ask her to apologize to you.
By the same token, however, if she sincerely believed what she was saying, you should extend an apology to her. OK?
Jim
[quote name='David Lifton' post='189353' date='Apr 10 2010, 11:23 AM']Judyth,
Re your statement concerning my 1991 filmed interview with Rachel Oswald, you write, QUOTE:He promised to help Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing. UNQUOTE
Judyth, you're a bald faced liar, and --as the saying goes--someone should wash your mouth out with soap.
As I have already noted, in a previous (and fairly detailed) post, explaining the full circumstances of my 1991 filmed interview with Rachel, in Austin:
1. Rachel Oswald consented to be interviewed by me, in 1991--an interview that was extremely detailed, ran about two hours; and covered many aspects of what it was like to grow up as the daughter of Lee Oswald. For that privilege, Rachel Oswald was paid about $1500.
2. A year later, HARDCOPY learned about this interview, and wanted to broadcast a small portion--about 5 minutes worth. Rachel was approached, consented, and was paid an additional $2500.
In sum, Rachel was paid a total of about $4,000 (at least, for I do not know the full arrangement) for a five minute broadcast version of her multi-hour interview with me.
In connection with that broadcast (or as a consequence, I do not remember the exact details), Rachel was also flown to Europe for about a week, all expenses paid, to the Netherlands.
Marina Oswald Porter, Rachel's mother, told me that Rachel was very pleased with the two hour 1991 interview, after it occurred.
Her stepfather, Kenneth Porter, told me that she banked the money and it helped accelerate her entry to graduate school. He, too, thanked me personally.
Flashing forward now a full year to the 1992 broadcast: Both Rachel and I were angry at the tasteless manner in which HARDCOPY used the few minutes they were licensed to use.
Returning now to your false charge: whether the show was up to par or not (and it definitely was not) Rachel received about $4,000.
To this day, some 18 years later, I have a signed copy of a release for the entire two hour interview, but only about 5 minutes have ever publicly been used.
As is often the case, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Returning now to your statement: "He promised to help Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing."
I repeat what I said at the outset of this post: This is a total falsehood, and your continued repetition of this false statement expose you as nothing but a cheap and uninformed liar. Further, very time you repeat this, I'm going to post a rebuttal, until you stop lying about it.
For whatever reason, Jim Fetzer insists on believing you, and has invested his self image and reputation in the rubbish you promote.
But I won't stand for your nonsense.
DSL
4/10/10; 2:10 AM PDT
Los Angeles, California
P.S. I could care less whether you now say you were referring to "Kan Kun" rather than "Cancun" in your March, 2000 conversation with me. You said "Cancun"--that is quite obvious--but if you can't
be trusted to relate the truth about whether someone was paid $4,000 in fees, for the use of several minutes of a 2 hour filmed interview, and instead promote the fiction they were paid nothing, etc.,
then I have no interest in anything else you have to say, for that incident alone provides an accurate barometer to your utter lack of truthfulness and connection to reality.[/quote]