Your apparent new theory that the abstract was an abstract of nothing, and
that perhaps no paper ever existed shows how far you've drifted from any
semblance of objectivity.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVEjfk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ujbh349rm7jq9sjqu9bph1h9jqh6jgau74@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 24 May 2008 20:00:27 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> <mshack4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>You again repeat the false mantra that "the only info you have as
regards
>>most things is what Judyth has said." At least you hedged it a bit with
>>qualifications this time, but it remains inaccurate. That's your
reality.
>>
>>I always sought any do***entation available, checked things against
other
>>sources (including Mary Ferrell's chronology), communicated with her
son,
>>daughter, sister and best friend, as well as with the professor to whom
>>she showed the letters she had written to her son. I interviewed Anna
>>Lewis myself, and sup****ted the videotaping of her account, as well as
>>that of Judyth herself. I encouraged others to investigate any aspects
>>they were in a position to learn more about-- Ed Haslam looked through
the
>>local papers in Bradenton, Joe Riehl checked out matters in New Orleans,
>>others located Oswald's pay stubs, talked with additional witnesses, and
>>found more do***ents.
>
> And no one bothered to do the most basic fact checking. Dismal.
>>
>>I've sup****ted any open-minded research into her account--you haven't
>>shown any evidence of falling into that category, Barb.
>
> Like many, I waited with interest for the book with all that evidence
> and do***entation you had told everyone would be in it for years. It
> wasn't there.
>
> And, like it or not, most of what you post as evidence, excuses and
> explanations is based only on Judyth's sayso. Most recent case in
> point ... there being two separate papers, which you said at first,
> then yesterday or this morning, it became paper number 2 was a
> continuation and follow up on paper number one.
>
> But you cannot state for a fact that ANY actual paper ever existed. We
> know there is an abstract. Beyond that, whether at RP or while at St.
> Francis, you don't know anything ... except for what Judyth claims.
>
> And even you, maybe especially you ... should know that that is just
> not good enough. And unfortunately, no matter how many times you
> repeat your telling of things, your assertions no longer carry the
> credibility they once did. People have been burned too many times.
>
> Barb :-)
>
>
>>
>>Martin
>>
>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVEjfk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:2u6e3490t8v2vq2dhlqt0avfu1c3gdcr6n@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> You state things as fact, Martin, but cannot (and will not) answer any
>>> questions or even explain ... because the only info you have as
>>> regards most things is what Judyth has said.
>>>
>>> That is your reality. Face that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Batrb :-)
>>>
>>> On 23 May 2008 14:26:52 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>>> <mshack4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nice to see you haven't abandoned your mantra, Barb.
>>>>Don't let reality get in your way.
>>>>
>>>>Martin
>>>>
>>>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVEjfk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>news:da3b3497a1g1s4iseavvm5fngvs8bj2cmk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> On 22 May 2008 04:09:28 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>>>>> <mshack4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>You are assuming that there was only one "melanogenesis paper,"
Barb.
>>>>>>You are certainly jumping to a lot of conclusions lately.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you know there were two papers because? The only answer, of
>>>>> course, since you have not seen any papers ...is because Judyth told
>>>>> you so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Judyth says "jump" and you don't even as "how high?" ... you just do
>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVEjfk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:3lu63457msn7k04jssd79ta5829n44lkah@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> On 20 May 2008 20:40:49 -0400, jfk297x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On May 19, 2:31 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The melanogenesis paper wasn't the one she presented at the
final
>>>>>>>>> session
>>>>>>>>> at Roswell Park, Pam. Not sure where you got that idea. It was
>>>>>>>>> written
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> St. Francis College, based on work she did there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The subject was the same -- melanogenesis -- and it is likely that
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>thesis was the same. There was not much time between RP and the
Oct
>>>>>>>>presentation of the paper for significant new research, was there?
>>>>>>>>Judyth
>>>>>>>>didn't start cl***** until mid-September.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, that would seem to be a problem, wouldn't it? :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And when Martin mused where you got the idea that she presented
the
>>>>>>> melanogenesis paper at Roswell ... why didn't you tell him that
you
>>>>>>> got it from what Judyth said herself, in her book?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <jfk2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
news:8e5959b7-265d-47bd-b3ed-378340597a01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > On May 16, 9:18 am, "Martin Shackelford"
<msha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> I've seen no sign whatsoever of that, Barb.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> Martin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > Of course not. Barb has yet to comprehend the significance of
>>>>>>>>> > her
>>>>>>>>> > tracking down Judyth's paper on melanogenisis. That alone
>>>>>>>>> > corroborates
>>>>>>>>> > the fact that the paper was not only presented once, but two
or
>>>>>>>>> > three
>>>>>>>>> > different times, the first being at RP. That being the case,
>>>>>>>>> > the
>>>>>>>>> > entire
>>>>>>>>> > concept of a 'dismissal' is ridiculous.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
message
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>news:eq9p24d55iavk9nqqqlmumf88av29kknbm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> > On 15 May 2008 16:14:20 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>>>>>>>>> >> > <msha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>Judyth did present a list of witnesses to her presentation
of
>>>>>>>>> >> >>her
>>>>>>>>> >> >>paper
>>>>>>>>> >> >>at
>>>>>>>>> >> >>the final session. Not of any interest to you, apparently.
>>>>>>>>> >> >>Not
>>>>>>>>> >> >>the
>>>>>>>>> >> >>kind
>>>>>>>>> >> >>of
>>>>>>>>> >> >>witnesses you're looking for.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>Martin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> > Oh, to the contrary, Martin, I am very interested in any
>>>>>>>>> >> > witnesses
>>>>>>>>> >> > to
>>>>>>>>> >> > any final session where papers were presented. :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> >> >>message
>>>>>>>>> >> >>news:cmtb24d35segjm0d90prq4jmhf9gdv0ug0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> On 10 May 2008 14:15:04 -0400, Steve Thomas
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> <misledrks...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> Did Roswell Park ever retract the information sent out
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> saying
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> Judyth
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>had been dismissed from the summer program? Id like to
see
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>some
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>evidence if they did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Roswell Park has not retracted the information given to
me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> No evidence of them having retracted it to anyone has
been
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> posted
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> and
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Judyth posted a statement acknowledging Dr. Mirand told a
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> coup[le
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> researchers that she had been dismissed ..... for a
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> "housing
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> violoation."
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> No researcher has stepped forward, though I have asked
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> several
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> times,
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> to confirm that Dr. Mirand told them Judyth was dismissed
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> for
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> a
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> "housing violation."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Judyth, of course, went on to explain that she had
finished
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> the
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> program in grand style anyway.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> IFFFFF Dr. Mirand had told ANY of them that Judyth had
been
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> dismissed
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> from the program for a "housing violation" but that she
had
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> completed
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> the program anyway, and in grand style .... that info
would
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> have
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> been
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> posted so fast that the handset on the phone wouldn't
have
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> had
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> time
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> to
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> cool.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> I've asked both Pamela and Martin just where the "housing
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> violation"
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> thing came from. If it's not what either of them or
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Martin's
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> "California researcher" were told by Mirand ... then did
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> that
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> "housing
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> violation" story come from ... Judyth?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> So, no ... the RP statement that Judyth did not complete
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> the
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> program
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> but was dismissed has NOT been retracted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> And no ... there has been no evidence posted of anything
as
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> regards
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> any info any of them got from Dr. Mirand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Bests,
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Barb :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
|
