25-04-2010, 11:59 PM
Dean,
I have become convinced, based upon extensive contact, confirmed by Nigel Turner's segment, Ed Haslam's
research, and evaluating more that 1,200 posts on this thread, that the attacks on Judyth are shoddy and, in
almost every case, based upon flimsy proof and faulty arguments. Lifton, for example, rejects her because
she talked about Cancun at a time it did not exist. But Judyth was talking about Kankun, which did, where
I think it would have been impossible for Lifton to have discerned any phonetic difference between them. (I
have asked for a cassette copy of the conversation, which he has refused to provide. I can imagine quite a
number of reasons why he doesn't want me to hear it, but that is no basis for rejecting her as a phony.) In
a similar vein, John Armstrong rejected her when she told him that, on some occasions, she had passed as
Marina, because Marina was pregnant but Judyth was not. He did not allow her to explain what she meant.
Jack White has enumerated about a dozen complaints against her, none of which turned out to be justifiable.
Junkkiarinen is endlessly recyclying old material from the McAdams' site, where she and Viklund have been
exposed as collaborating to attack her. The fact that she has been so massively abused in other forums is
no excuse not to grant her a level playing field here. My role has not only been to post on her behalf but
also to serve as a buffer between her and some of her less scrupulous critics. I have had a huge volume
of contact with her, including hundreds and hundreds of emails and other forms of contact, including, of
course, YouTube interviews and blogs about her. I find Ed Haslam's work thorough, meticulous, and very
compelling in placing her within the context of cancer research involving David Ferrie, Dr. Mary Sherman,
and Alton Ochsner, who was the key figure behind it all. When you consider what Ed has explained in his
two books, most recently, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, I find it difficult to imagine how anyone could take such
strong negative stances toward her. Anyone who wants to understand her story should read Ed's book.
As for the comparison between my psy ops expert and this rubbish from Jack's anonymous source, if you
don't understand the difference between a venomous ad hominem attack such as Jack posted and serious
analytical reflections on what has been going on during the course of this thread, then I am at a loss as to
what to tell you. In response to your other post, I am convinced she is "the real deal" and that almost all
of the complaints about her are fabricated or exaggerated. For some reason, everyone here is allowed to
have their opinions about Judyth except for me! If Judyth really is not the person she claims to be, then I
cannot imagine why she is drawing so much attention. Surely this is not all for my benefit! I have done
enough research on Judyth to draw my own conclusions. I am probably more versed in scholarship than
anyone else on this forum. I believe in her and I cannot allow personal friendships to defeat my commit-
ment to the search for truth. I defend others when I think they are right and oppose them when I think
they are wrong. I have stood up for Jack and David on many occasions, but in this case, they are wrong.
Jim
[quote name='Dean Hagerman' post='190033' date='Apr 19 2010, 01:44 AM']
[quote name='Greg Burnham' post='190029' date='Apr 18 2010, 11:47 PM']
Jack,
In all due respect, my friend, IMO this is chicken shit. It was a cowardly act by the author of the message who was too uncertain of him or her self to claim responsibility for their position (if it can even be called that). It is a very low blow, not to Judyth mind you, but to yourself! Whoever the author is, you might consider the very real possibility that Judyth was not the target of the attack--you were. And, judging from Jim's reaction, it appears that they may have hit the bull's eye.
There is a "signature" to these things, my friend. You know me--and you know my meaning.
GO_SECURE
monk
[quote name='Jack White' post='190015' date='Apr 18 2010, 01:19 PM']It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):
[color="#000080"]"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."
[/color]
There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This
has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become
disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?[/quote]
[/quote]
Greg
So its ok for Jim to post some silly Psy-Op garbage attacking Jack from an unkown person
Why is it ok for Jim to do that but not ok for Jack?
I dont understand
[/quote]
I have become convinced, based upon extensive contact, confirmed by Nigel Turner's segment, Ed Haslam's
research, and evaluating more that 1,200 posts on this thread, that the attacks on Judyth are shoddy and, in
almost every case, based upon flimsy proof and faulty arguments. Lifton, for example, rejects her because
she talked about Cancun at a time it did not exist. But Judyth was talking about Kankun, which did, where
I think it would have been impossible for Lifton to have discerned any phonetic difference between them. (I
have asked for a cassette copy of the conversation, which he has refused to provide. I can imagine quite a
number of reasons why he doesn't want me to hear it, but that is no basis for rejecting her as a phony.) In
a similar vein, John Armstrong rejected her when she told him that, on some occasions, she had passed as
Marina, because Marina was pregnant but Judyth was not. He did not allow her to explain what she meant.
Jack White has enumerated about a dozen complaints against her, none of which turned out to be justifiable.
Junkkiarinen is endlessly recyclying old material from the McAdams' site, where she and Viklund have been
exposed as collaborating to attack her. The fact that she has been so massively abused in other forums is
no excuse not to grant her a level playing field here. My role has not only been to post on her behalf but
also to serve as a buffer between her and some of her less scrupulous critics. I have had a huge volume
of contact with her, including hundreds and hundreds of emails and other forms of contact, including, of
course, YouTube interviews and blogs about her. I find Ed Haslam's work thorough, meticulous, and very
compelling in placing her within the context of cancer research involving David Ferrie, Dr. Mary Sherman,
and Alton Ochsner, who was the key figure behind it all. When you consider what Ed has explained in his
two books, most recently, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, I find it difficult to imagine how anyone could take such
strong negative stances toward her. Anyone who wants to understand her story should read Ed's book.
As for the comparison between my psy ops expert and this rubbish from Jack's anonymous source, if you
don't understand the difference between a venomous ad hominem attack such as Jack posted and serious
analytical reflections on what has been going on during the course of this thread, then I am at a loss as to
what to tell you. In response to your other post, I am convinced she is "the real deal" and that almost all
of the complaints about her are fabricated or exaggerated. For some reason, everyone here is allowed to
have their opinions about Judyth except for me! If Judyth really is not the person she claims to be, then I
cannot imagine why she is drawing so much attention. Surely this is not all for my benefit! I have done
enough research on Judyth to draw my own conclusions. I am probably more versed in scholarship than
anyone else on this forum. I believe in her and I cannot allow personal friendships to defeat my commit-
ment to the search for truth. I defend others when I think they are right and oppose them when I think
they are wrong. I have stood up for Jack and David on many occasions, but in this case, they are wrong.
Jim
[quote name='Dean Hagerman' post='190033' date='Apr 19 2010, 01:44 AM']
[quote name='Greg Burnham' post='190029' date='Apr 18 2010, 11:47 PM']
Jack,
In all due respect, my friend, IMO this is chicken shit. It was a cowardly act by the author of the message who was too uncertain of him or her self to claim responsibility for their position (if it can even be called that). It is a very low blow, not to Judyth mind you, but to yourself! Whoever the author is, you might consider the very real possibility that Judyth was not the target of the attack--you were. And, judging from Jim's reaction, it appears that they may have hit the bull's eye.
There is a "signature" to these things, my friend. You know me--and you know my meaning.
GO_SECURE
monk
[quote name='Jack White' post='190015' date='Apr 18 2010, 01:19 PM']It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):
[color="#000080"]"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."
[/color]
There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This
has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become
disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?[/quote]
[/quote]
Greg
So its ok for Jim to post some silly Psy-Op garbage attacking Jack from an unkown person
Why is it ok for Jim to do that but not ok for Jack?
I dont understand
[/quote]