Re: JUDYTH: National Science Foundation scholar****p and grants

On May 16, 9:19=A0am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Michael O'Dell wrote:
> > "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >news:58-dnZu8epy2oLHVnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Michael O'Dell wrote:
> >>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>>news:5vKdnflyKvNyBYHVnZ2dnUVZ_rSrnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>> Michael O'Dell wrote:
> >>>>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:M72dnbkdmqlJhobVnZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>>> kbs88...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Apr 30, 10:16 pm, "paul seaton"
<paulNOseatonS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Howard,
>
> >>>>>>>> First, my cards on the table : I don't believe the
'interesting'
> >>>>>>>> parts of
> >>>>>>>> Judyth's story - I mean her supposed connection to LHO & Ferrie
&=

> >>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>> that, though I do think it's clear she was a very bright
student,=

> >>>>>>>> and did
> >>>>>>>> work at Reilly.
>
> >>>>>>>> Now, what I want to ask you is , what ( aside from JVB's body
> >>>>>>>> language )
> >>>>>>>> actual hard physical evidence convinces you of the truth of her
> >>>>>>>> story - ie
> >>>>>>>> what -for you - kills the hypothesis that she basically just
made=
 up
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> whole JFK connection ?
>
> >>>>>>>> It would be interesting if you could boil your belief down to a
> >>>>>>>> finite
> >>>>>>>> hard core of key facts that swing you in her favour. I should
say=

> >>>>>>>> that -
> >>>>>>>> in my state of ignorance, not having read her book - I am under
t=
he
> >>>>>>>> impression that there are no such facts.
>
> >>>>>>>> Paul S
>
> >>>>>>>> ps: post also cc'ddirect to Howard
> >>>>>>> I just wanted to jump in here for a second to say that I really
am=

> >>>>>>> enjoying all of these JUDYTH threads. I've only made a few posts
i=
n
> >>>>>>> the JFK group but have read a lot of the information here. The
rea=
son
> >>>>>>> the JUDYTH threads are so interesting to me is that they cover a
> >>>>>>> recent addition to the JFK saga. The books you see on Amazon.com
> >>>>>>> cover parts of the assassination that have been gone over with a
f=
ine
> >>>>>>> tooth comb for years. However, the investigative work that Barb
is=

> >>>>>>> doing is up to the minute new information and it's great to see
al=
l
> >>>>>>> the correspondence unfold. I just want to say thanks to Barb for
> >>>>>>> going through all the trouble to get to the truth (whether it
> >>>>>>> sup****ts or damages Judyth's story) and placing it on a public
for=
um
> >>>>>>> for critical review.
>
> >>>>>> Except for the fact that Barb's only agenda is to attack Judyth
at =
all
> >>>>>> costs.
>
> >>>>> Now Tony, I was hoping you'd stop tarni****ng your image by make
such=

> >>>>> silly statements.
>
> >>>>> Barb's motive doesn't matter. =A0The truth matters. =A0If her sole
m=
otive
> >>>>> was to dig up dirt, the dirt would still have to be there to be
dug =
up.
> >>>>> What matters is if the dirt exists, not the motivation of the
person=

> >>>>> who finds it.
>
> >>>> Her motive does matter. If there are 100 points, she looks into
only
> >>>> those points where she can dig up dirt and re****ts that 100% of the
> >>>> points she checked out are bogus, but that could be only 35 of the
10=
0
> >>>> points.
>
> >>> Purely your fantasizing. =A0She hasn't looked into only those points
w=
here
> >>> she can dig up dirt. =A0She has clearly looked into those points
where=

> >>> something might still be do***ented.
>
> >> She did not look for the letter to President Kennedy. Guess there's
no
> >> dirt there.
>
> > Couple of points you have persistently missed.
>
> > The letter is not a material part of the story. =A0Having or not
having =
a
> > copy of it changed nothing. =A0If I recall, she said she wrote a
letter,=
 and
> > had a reply. =A0The reply is pretty much proof that she wrote the
letter=
, so
> > its existence was not in question.
>
> You seem to have missed the point. Judyth's attackers claim that she
> lied about everything. I proved that is not true. She did not just
> fantasize about writing to President Kennedy. I found the actual letter.
> She could not. Martin could not. You could not. Bard could not.
>
> > However, having gotten the letter from the JFK library, it did not
suppo=
rt
> > Judyth's version of events. =A0Call that "dirt" if you like, you
recover=
ed
> > the "dirt". =A0The content of the letter did not say what Judyth said
it=

> > did, and it was not written when she said it was.
>
> Not dirt.
>
> > The thing is, if you research a story and the story is not entirely
true=
,
> > you are likely to find things you call "dirt". =A0But that's the
nature =
of
> > the beast. =A0If it's a true story there won't be "dirt". =A0Your
cirtic=
ism of
> > Barb for finding "dirt" is illogical. =A0But you know that, at least
in
> > other contexts.
>
> The point is the common CIA tactic of attacking the credibility of the
> source rather than deal with the facts.



   Its a common tactic in arguments(even without the CIA) Marsh,
something you should know about your a pro at it.




>
>
>
> > Michael- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -