11-04-2010, 02:28 AM
JUDYTH RESPONDS TO DAVID LIFTON ABOUT RACHEL OSWALD
In the midst of this brouhaha does not appear to be a promising time to take a mini-family vacation.
The endless onslaught of attacks reminds me of the point I and others have made about the Warren
Commission sealing testimony and records for 75 years based upon national security considerations.
If the Warren Commission version of events were true, there were no "national security aspects" to
the assassination. If Judyth were a fantasist, as David, Jack, and others have claimed, why would
there be any reason to attack her? None of this makes any sense. Here is Judyth's reply to Lifton on
Rachel, which, together with the summary of the article by Laura Miller in The Dallas Observer, offers
evidence that Judyth had good reasons to believe that Lifton had pulled "a fast one" on Rachel. What
I would like is a copy of Miller's article, if anyone can provide me with a copy, because it appears to
have "disappeared" from the internet. With it or without it, my inference is that Judyth had grounds
to believe that Lifton had shortchanged Rachel, which means that, even if her belief turns out to be
false, as Lifton insists, she did not satisfy the third or fourth conditions for committing a lie. Under
these circumstances, it seems to me that it is Lifton who owes Judyth an apology and not vice versa.
JUDYTH REPLIES
Dear Jim--
Firs of all, I want to state that my family has not abandoned me over this issue. My dad and my mother always
staunchly defended me. Two of my five children have sacrificed tremendously to get me safe shelter overseas.
One son spent over $45,000, cashing in his retirement fund, to help me stay safe. He was a witness to some of
the threats and harrassments I've endured.
Another son offered me a beautiful, free house in Florida (he owns some fifteen houses and is wealthy) and offered
to publish my book, with all revenues going to me, if I would publish it as "historical fiction." When I turned him down,
he broke off contact with me. Another son also cut me entirely from his life. It's heartbreaking.
About Rachel Oswald Porter
I stated what I did about Rachel Oswald because I received an email from Rachel--and Wim Dankbaar and Linda Minor
have both verified that the email was from her. Even then I did not know what Rachel might be talking about by having
mentioned Lifton, which was an unsolicited comment, so I asked some researchers to tell me what they knew.
Here is Rachel Butterman's email to me:
From: Rachel Buttermann [coneheads@XXXXXX]
Sent: Tuesday November 18, 2003 7:47
To: elec...@xs4all.nl
Subject: A note from LHO's daughter
Hello,
My name is Rachel Oswald. I was born 10/20/1963. I just saw your
interview on the History Channel. After 40 years of unwanted
attention, I want to thank you for placing the light on yourself and
not my poor mother who becomes distraught every November at this time.
I wanted to tell you that either you are a victim of too much
knowledge and are delusional or you are telling your truth about what
you believed happened to you in 1963.
Personally, I just wanted to know what you can tell me about my
father.
Sincerely,
Rachel Oswald Porter
P.S. I cannot stand David Lifton and believe he would sell his mother
if the price were right. Your thoughts?
![[Image: 2vkm9e9.jpg]](http://i39.tinypic.com/2vkm9e9.jpg)
==I replied with two sincere letters about her father, and how much she had meant to him. The emails were not rejected.
Then Wim Dankbaar found her address and phone number and called her, but her husband wisely and protectively refused
access. Then she changed her email address. I would NEVER have given out her last name, where she lives, etc. but the
McAdams' newsgroup got that email and others stolen from me, and published it on their newsgroup, on May 24, 2008, at
12:58 AM with no compunctions about revealing her last name. Four days later, they wrote:
NOTE: The moderators have redacted information in this post that might compromise the privacy of Rachael Oswald.
Then they published her letter again, but left the former post and her name still visible higher in the thread.
I always try to verify what I'm told. Rachel said, "I cannot stand David Lifton and believe he would sell his mother if the
price were right. Your thoughts?"
It was Rachel who made the negative statement. I did seek evidence to see why she made that statement, and learned
that the present (at that time) Mayor of Houston, Laura Miller, had written an story about David Lifton. Lifton did not sue.
One person on the Internet, Deb Hart, wrote to David Nesbitt:
debhart94103@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:55nervc9uvcpjq7i4rk8mj61m3g87egk70@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:39:52 GMT, "David P. Nesbitt"
> <cnesbitt@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Get a copy of the Dallas Observer article, written by Laura Miller
> (current mayor of Dallas, TX), which lays it out in all its sordid
> detail. In summary, [Lifton] lied to Miss Oswald-Porter,
> claiming he wanted to "interview [her] for historical purposes only".
> He paid her a few dollars (literally) "for her time" and got a
> "release". (she was a nursing student, working her way through school
> at the time). Then, he turned around and SOLD THE TAPE to HARD COPY
> FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS.. She was literally waiting tables in a
> restaurant in Austin, TX when she looked up at a screen to see herself
> on HARD COPY.
>
> And THAT'S NOT ALL.
>
> He used computer technology to take a "still" picture from the video
> tape, and sold it to tabloids ALL OVER EUROPE for THOUSANDS MORE.
>
> This guy has given EVERYONE foolish enough to call himself a
> "conspiracy theorist" (he invented the demeaning term) the WORST
> possible reputation.
>
> Even the *cameramen* at HARD COPY (not to mention the executive
> producers) considered him scum.
Thanks for the info, Deb! I had no idea that this had occurred. It is sad
that there are so many who shamefully capitalize on this national tragedy.
==============end post by Deb Hart==================
Was Laura Miller an investigative report for The Dallas Observer? Yes:
"Laura Miller (born November 18, 1958) served as mayor of Dallas, Texas (U.S.) from 2002 through 2007...
In 1991, Miller became an investigative reporter for the Dallas Observer ...In 1998, Miller was elected to the
Dallas City Council representing Oak Cliff and southwest Dallas. In 2002, Miller was elected as Mayor of Dallas."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Miller
Miller was always against corruption: wrote one newsgroup person:
"Laura Miller is an independent minded councilwoman who
has a history of standing up to the downtown power system.
While her power is somewhat limited as a mere council member,
she has a large following in the city from her days as a journalist
for the Dallas Observer..." She later was elected Mayor of Dallas.
Deb Bert (under a different name) on April 4, 2001, two years before she wrote in response to Rachel's complaint
against Lifton, told readers about what he had done to Rachel (and, I do not think Rachel would bring it up in an
email to me unless she felt, in 2003, a BIG grudge against Lifton for some BIG reason, as the email was short):
"It was Ms. Miller who wrote the excellent article on his exploitation of one of the Oswald daughters. After reading
that article, I decided that nothing written ....by [Lifton] was to be trusted. Someone who would lie to Oswald's
daughter would lie to the rest of us as well."
To which another person replied:
<wparker...@home.com>
I would appreciate it if you could direct me to where I could find Miller's article on [Lifton].
I used to believe he was sincere until I had some unfortunate personal dealing with him
Bill Parker
REPLY: "The article was published in the Dallas Observer in the spring or early summer of 1992,
and should be available in their archives for a small fee. It leaves NOTHING to the imagination."
[NOTE: Her articles in the Dallas Observer: http://www.dallasobserver.com/authors/laura-miller
do not include the one of interest. I would appreciate it if someone could send a copy to me.]
Re Lifon's Book, originally to be called something like "I Led ThreeLives" and then, "Charade" one
researcher stated:
David P. Nesbitt
View profile
Nov 14 2003, 3:20 am
Well, the timing has been bad a couple of times. Norman Mailer's book came
out and then Oswald and the CIA, so there was starting to be a glut of books
which is a bad thing for sales. But I don't know what the problem has been
the last 5 years.
Another wrote:
> "He was on Black Op radio recently and said that he was still working
> on his book about Oswald. " (Nov. 2003)
==But Lifton never contacted me but a single time, if only to dismiss my claims after thoroughly investigating them.
I had been willing to cooperate thoroughly.
Why did Rachel Oswald say he would sell his own mother if the price was right?
It was she who brought up a money angle.
In fact, I kept that email from Rachel to myself.
I had not sought to place Mr. Lifton in a bad light by using it-- even though he had attacked me, by then, many times.
I kept he email private.
Rachel's security meant more to me than revealing her email to defend myself against Mr. Lifton.
Then, somebody who is an acknowledged mental case, who had gotten hold of my emails, published Rachel's email to
me on McAdams' newsgroup.==
Summary:
Failure to keep confidentiality: David Lifton broke his word, saying he would keep our only conversation confidential.
The broken promise tells me that he can lie.
Secret and illegal taping: this tells me he can do unscrupulous things.
An unsolicited complaint from Rachel Oswald sating that he would sell his own mother for money. Obviously, something
bad happened between Rachel and Lifton regarding money: this tells me that something to do with money occurred
between Rachel Oswald and David Lifton, to her disadvantage.
He has misrepresented my statements to him and refused to acknowledge his misinterpretations of my statements when
they were pointed out to him at the Education Forum in 2010: he is willing to continue a misrepresentation even after it
has been shown to be wrong.
Conclusion:
David Lifton did something harmful to Rachel Oswald Porter Butterman, financially, and I am justified in pointing it out,
not only because it has already been mentioned elsewhere, and not just because it was brought up by Butterman, but
because Mr. Lifton has also treated me unscrupulously.
It seems he will delay his book in hopes I will die first, because he knows I will come out swinging if he misrepresents
anything about Lee Oswald that I know not to be the truth, such as, for example, getting the very date of his arrival in
New Orleans wrong, just for starters.
Even when Dr. Fetzer corrected him, Mr. Lifton ignored his correction, and again insisted that Oswald arrived on the 26th
instead of the 25th of April, 1963, in New Orleans. Was that because I said Oswald met with David Ferrie on the 25th?
What kind of biography would Lifton's book represent about the real Oswald, if he is willing to hide a claim that Lee
Oswald met with David Ferrie on 25 April, 1963?
JVB
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189360' date='Apr 10 2010, 11:23 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]
[/quote]
In the midst of this brouhaha does not appear to be a promising time to take a mini-family vacation.
The endless onslaught of attacks reminds me of the point I and others have made about the Warren
Commission sealing testimony and records for 75 years based upon national security considerations.
If the Warren Commission version of events were true, there were no "national security aspects" to
the assassination. If Judyth were a fantasist, as David, Jack, and others have claimed, why would
there be any reason to attack her? None of this makes any sense. Here is Judyth's reply to Lifton on
Rachel, which, together with the summary of the article by Laura Miller in The Dallas Observer, offers
evidence that Judyth had good reasons to believe that Lifton had pulled "a fast one" on Rachel. What
I would like is a copy of Miller's article, if anyone can provide me with a copy, because it appears to
have "disappeared" from the internet. With it or without it, my inference is that Judyth had grounds
to believe that Lifton had shortchanged Rachel, which means that, even if her belief turns out to be
false, as Lifton insists, she did not satisfy the third or fourth conditions for committing a lie. Under
these circumstances, it seems to me that it is Lifton who owes Judyth an apology and not vice versa.
JUDYTH REPLIES
Dear Jim--
Firs of all, I want to state that my family has not abandoned me over this issue. My dad and my mother always
staunchly defended me. Two of my five children have sacrificed tremendously to get me safe shelter overseas.
One son spent over $45,000, cashing in his retirement fund, to help me stay safe. He was a witness to some of
the threats and harrassments I've endured.
Another son offered me a beautiful, free house in Florida (he owns some fifteen houses and is wealthy) and offered
to publish my book, with all revenues going to me, if I would publish it as "historical fiction." When I turned him down,
he broke off contact with me. Another son also cut me entirely from his life. It's heartbreaking.
About Rachel Oswald Porter
I stated what I did about Rachel Oswald because I received an email from Rachel--and Wim Dankbaar and Linda Minor
have both verified that the email was from her. Even then I did not know what Rachel might be talking about by having
mentioned Lifton, which was an unsolicited comment, so I asked some researchers to tell me what they knew.
Here is Rachel Butterman's email to me:
From: Rachel Buttermann [coneheads@XXXXXX]
Sent: Tuesday November 18, 2003 7:47
To: elec...@xs4all.nl
Subject: A note from LHO's daughter
Hello,
My name is Rachel Oswald. I was born 10/20/1963. I just saw your
interview on the History Channel. After 40 years of unwanted
attention, I want to thank you for placing the light on yourself and
not my poor mother who becomes distraught every November at this time.
I wanted to tell you that either you are a victim of too much
knowledge and are delusional or you are telling your truth about what
you believed happened to you in 1963.
Personally, I just wanted to know what you can tell me about my
father.
Sincerely,
Rachel Oswald Porter
P.S. I cannot stand David Lifton and believe he would sell his mother
if the price were right. Your thoughts?
==I replied with two sincere letters about her father, and how much she had meant to him. The emails were not rejected.
Then Wim Dankbaar found her address and phone number and called her, but her husband wisely and protectively refused
access. Then she changed her email address. I would NEVER have given out her last name, where she lives, etc. but the
McAdams' newsgroup got that email and others stolen from me, and published it on their newsgroup, on May 24, 2008, at
12:58 AM with no compunctions about revealing her last name. Four days later, they wrote:
NOTE: The moderators have redacted information in this post that might compromise the privacy of Rachael Oswald.
Then they published her letter again, but left the former post and her name still visible higher in the thread.
I always try to verify what I'm told. Rachel said, "I cannot stand David Lifton and believe he would sell his mother if the
price were right. Your thoughts?"
It was Rachel who made the negative statement. I did seek evidence to see why she made that statement, and learned
that the present (at that time) Mayor of Houston, Laura Miller, had written an story about David Lifton. Lifton did not sue.
One person on the Internet, Deb Hart, wrote to David Nesbitt:
debhart94103@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:55nervc9uvcpjq7i4rk8mj61m3g87egk70@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:39:52 GMT, "David P. Nesbitt"
> <cnesbitt@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Get a copy of the Dallas Observer article, written by Laura Miller
> (current mayor of Dallas, TX), which lays it out in all its sordid
> detail. In summary, [Lifton] lied to Miss Oswald-Porter,
> claiming he wanted to "interview [her] for historical purposes only".
> He paid her a few dollars (literally) "for her time" and got a
> "release". (she was a nursing student, working her way through school
> at the time). Then, he turned around and SOLD THE TAPE to HARD COPY
> FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS.. She was literally waiting tables in a
> restaurant in Austin, TX when she looked up at a screen to see herself
> on HARD COPY.
>
> And THAT'S NOT ALL.
>
> He used computer technology to take a "still" picture from the video
> tape, and sold it to tabloids ALL OVER EUROPE for THOUSANDS MORE.
>
> This guy has given EVERYONE foolish enough to call himself a
> "conspiracy theorist" (he invented the demeaning term) the WORST
> possible reputation.
>
> Even the *cameramen* at HARD COPY (not to mention the executive
> producers) considered him scum.
Thanks for the info, Deb! I had no idea that this had occurred. It is sad
that there are so many who shamefully capitalize on this national tragedy.
==============end post by Deb Hart==================
Was Laura Miller an investigative report for The Dallas Observer? Yes:
"Laura Miller (born November 18, 1958) served as mayor of Dallas, Texas (U.S.) from 2002 through 2007...
In 1991, Miller became an investigative reporter for the Dallas Observer ...In 1998, Miller was elected to the
Dallas City Council representing Oak Cliff and southwest Dallas. In 2002, Miller was elected as Mayor of Dallas."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Miller
Miller was always against corruption: wrote one newsgroup person:
"Laura Miller is an independent minded councilwoman who
has a history of standing up to the downtown power system.
While her power is somewhat limited as a mere council member,
she has a large following in the city from her days as a journalist
for the Dallas Observer..." She later was elected Mayor of Dallas.
Deb Bert (under a different name) on April 4, 2001, two years before she wrote in response to Rachel's complaint
against Lifton, told readers about what he had done to Rachel (and, I do not think Rachel would bring it up in an
email to me unless she felt, in 2003, a BIG grudge against Lifton for some BIG reason, as the email was short):
"It was Ms. Miller who wrote the excellent article on his exploitation of one of the Oswald daughters. After reading
that article, I decided that nothing written ....by [Lifton] was to be trusted. Someone who would lie to Oswald's
daughter would lie to the rest of us as well."
To which another person replied:
<wparker...@home.com>
I would appreciate it if you could direct me to where I could find Miller's article on [Lifton].
I used to believe he was sincere until I had some unfortunate personal dealing with him
Bill Parker
REPLY: "The article was published in the Dallas Observer in the spring or early summer of 1992,
and should be available in their archives for a small fee. It leaves NOTHING to the imagination."
[NOTE: Her articles in the Dallas Observer: http://www.dallasobserver.com/authors/laura-miller
do not include the one of interest. I would appreciate it if someone could send a copy to me.]
Re Lifon's Book, originally to be called something like "I Led ThreeLives" and then, "Charade" one
researcher stated:
David P. Nesbitt
View profile
Nov 14 2003, 3:20 am
Well, the timing has been bad a couple of times. Norman Mailer's book came
out and then Oswald and the CIA, so there was starting to be a glut of books
which is a bad thing for sales. But I don't know what the problem has been
the last 5 years.
Another wrote:
> "He was on Black Op radio recently and said that he was still working
> on his book about Oswald. " (Nov. 2003)
==But Lifton never contacted me but a single time, if only to dismiss my claims after thoroughly investigating them.
I had been willing to cooperate thoroughly.
Why did Rachel Oswald say he would sell his own mother if the price was right?
It was she who brought up a money angle.
In fact, I kept that email from Rachel to myself.
I had not sought to place Mr. Lifton in a bad light by using it-- even though he had attacked me, by then, many times.
I kept he email private.
Rachel's security meant more to me than revealing her email to defend myself against Mr. Lifton.
Then, somebody who is an acknowledged mental case, who had gotten hold of my emails, published Rachel's email to
me on McAdams' newsgroup.==
Summary:
Failure to keep confidentiality: David Lifton broke his word, saying he would keep our only conversation confidential.
The broken promise tells me that he can lie.
Secret and illegal taping: this tells me he can do unscrupulous things.
An unsolicited complaint from Rachel Oswald sating that he would sell his own mother for money. Obviously, something
bad happened between Rachel and Lifton regarding money: this tells me that something to do with money occurred
between Rachel Oswald and David Lifton, to her disadvantage.
He has misrepresented my statements to him and refused to acknowledge his misinterpretations of my statements when
they were pointed out to him at the Education Forum in 2010: he is willing to continue a misrepresentation even after it
has been shown to be wrong.
Conclusion:
David Lifton did something harmful to Rachel Oswald Porter Butterman, financially, and I am justified in pointing it out,
not only because it has already been mentioned elsewhere, and not just because it was brought up by Butterman, but
because Mr. Lifton has also treated me unscrupulously.
It seems he will delay his book in hopes I will die first, because he knows I will come out swinging if he misrepresents
anything about Lee Oswald that I know not to be the truth, such as, for example, getting the very date of his arrival in
New Orleans wrong, just for starters.
Even when Dr. Fetzer corrected him, Mr. Lifton ignored his correction, and again insisted that Oswald arrived on the 26th
instead of the 25th of April, 1963, in New Orleans. Was that because I said Oswald met with David Ferrie on the 25th?
What kind of biography would Lifton's book represent about the real Oswald, if he is willing to hide a claim that Lee
Oswald met with David Ferrie on 25 April, 1963?
JVB
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189360' date='Apr 10 2010, 11:23 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]
[/quote]