Nobody can control people who have obsessions: it's their problem, though they can cause problems for others. Greg Parker is another example.--He wrote this:
"My Big Fat Judyth Obsesssion"
|Posted by Greg on January 25, 2015 at 1:10 AM...|
THAT'S AUSTRALIAN GREG PARKER. HE SAYS HE WANTS TO SEE THE JFK CASE REOPENED. IF SO, WHY DOES HE TRY TO DISCREDIT A WITNESS WHO HAS WORKED HARD TO TRY TO REOPEN THE CASE? BECAUSE HE, IN HIS OWN WORDS, HAS AN OBSESSION.
He's continuds to post insulting statements, demanding that I provide evidence to refute whatever comes into his head and onto the keyboard. He insists that I drop my busy life to respond to his every 'challenge.' The latest one is that I somehow managed to get a psychologist to write a nice letter about me through some kind of hanky-panky. Let's forget the fact that he's implying that Dr. Julie Duncan was doing something dishonest for me, or that I lied about needing the letter for employment. She knew I was being attacked as having mental problems -- simply because I'd had a head injury. Mr. Parker wants to make this molehill into a mountain. (Let's hope he gets over his obsession, which is an embarrassment to both of us).
Look on the Internet: go to http://www.meandlee.com to find out more about me. In contrast, if you go to the Australian's site, you'll find a lot of disinformation about me. He is eager to nit-pick on every possible detail, wherever he can, to discredit me.
In a recent post, Parker accuses me of being dishonest concerning obtaining a letter from Dr. Julie Duncan, a psychologist who gave me a big battery of tests after I had sustained a second traumatic concussion -- a concussion that made me lose my job.
My concern was that I could not obtain another job if my medical record of two recent concussions -- losing a teaching position each time due to the injury -- became an issue.
RECENTLY, I USED THE LETTER TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT I DID NOT HAVE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS -- AFTER MR. PARKER ACCUSED ME OF BEING A 'FANTAST.'
Not content with trying to ruin my reputation with that label, Parker decided it was time to take issue with the letter itself, writing:
Let's examine how honestly this was obtained.
He then tells the reader --without any kind of evidence-- the following unsubstantiated lie:
It was obtained under the ruse of Judyth needing to obtain a job with Platzman's company.
This libelous statement is not backed up by a single piece of evidence,
NOW FOR THE FACTS.
1. Dr. Platzman was a Vice President in a large insurance company based in New York.
2. Dr. Platzman was in charge of writing a great deal of material for marketing and communication for his company, including in-house magazines and reports, the company's yearly projects, and so on.
3. While I don't know all the people Dr. Platzman had used to do research and writing for his projects, one such person was named "Jay" -- and I have an email about his doing work on a contract basis for Dr. Platzman.
4. While there was no current contract work for me at the time the letter was written with his company, it was anticipated that such an opportunity could present at any time.
5. John McAdams' newsgroup was at that time posting accusations that I was a 'fantast' -- this old accusation being recently repeated by Parker. These arm-chair psychiatrists posted that head injuries such as mine caused mental problems.
6. In 2002, if you looked up my name on the Internet back then, all you could find was what the McAdams' anti-Oswald newsgroup was saying about me. It looked like what parker writes now. Only by 2003 did this change. The History Channel documentary came out that year. By 2007, Edward Haslam's book Dr. Mary's Monkey came out. By 2010, Me & Lee was published. That changed the nature of the attacks from "fantast" to "untruthful" until Mr. parker started it up again. Now he, too, is changing his story from "fantast" to "untruthful": since, of course, this letter helps disprove his original accusation.
7. At this time, persons from McAdams' newsgroup were also contacting people who knew me, trying to get negative information. A Mr. Johnson visited my former husband: his second wife falsely reported that we were living in Florida by July, 1963--an outright lie that spread everywhere. Then, I provided researchers with rent receipts, utility bills, a letter from Robert from Florida to me in New Orleans, etc. showing I was still in New Orleans until swept. 2, 1963. Johnson also questioned former classmates at Manatee High School, some of whom contacted me, upset because he was telling them that I was "weird" and wanted them to go on record agreeing with him.
8. Because my head injury had meant job losses, created double vision problems and a serious short term memory problem (it took several years to get all my short term memory back), I asked Dr. Duncan if she thought it would be appropriate to write a letter showing I'd passed all the tests. I told her about the armchair diagnosis problem and that I feared it could hurt my chances of employment with Dr. Platzman as a contract writer, or with anyone else. Even though he was a friend, if somebody from this hostile group contacted Dr. Platzman's company complaining about his using me, I did not want him to get in trouble.
Question: What job were you applying for Judyth? Let him find it for himself: he's supposedly a researcher. he can find out, simply by asking Dr. Platzman.
Question: What was the name of Platzman's company, Judyth? Let him find it for himself: he's supposedly a researcher. he can find the name of the company simply by asking Dr. Platzman.
Do your own research, Mr. Parker. Hint: over a hundred members of his company lost their lives when one of the Towers in 9-11 collapsed. Poor Dr. Platzman saw it happen: they were, at the time, moving from their longtime building site into one of the Twin Towers. Go hunt for it.
Dr. Duncan knew everything about me. The evaluation included the MMPI II, which came up with no diagnosis on any psychological axis, meaning I was psychologically sound.
2. The report requested by 60 Minutes carried no such burdon of pleasing one side or the other. The only interest 60 Minutes had was in discerning the truth about your psychological make up. That one factor would sway their decision and they had to get it right. We all know the plug was pulled on it, and we all know why. They got the truth.
RESPONSE: The 60M report was based on 1.5 hours of a criminal psychologist questioning me. He never was told a thing about me, was just asked to interview me. I wastold the interview was in order to then give me an MMPI II, which I had asked Sixty Minutes to conduct, to prove I was a truth-teller. They had told me they refused to use a lie detector test because of their own research into lie detector frauds. I had a witness with me. She agreed that when I offered to provide evidence--I had the files with me--of my having invented a new way to get magnesium from seawater, he refused to look at it. He refused to look at any of the evidence I had with me. Howard Liebengood [of Watergate investigation fame,] read the report over the phone to Martin Shackelford. Mr. Parker has read Shackelford's comments online -- they are easily found even now-- but he fails to tell the reader that both he and Liebengood agreed that the evaluation was based on rejecting true statements, such as that I had learned to read at age 3,
that I had conducted cancer research in high school, and other absolute truths.
You pull out the letter to Platzman at the drop of a hat to "prove" you are quite "normal".
Of course. It was in response to PARKER'S accusations. Obviously, it surprised him. Can he present a letter from a Doctor of Psychology to 'prove' that HE is "normal"?
But the 60 Minutes report was obtained without deception (unlike yours) [This is a libelous statement that Mr. Parker would be wise to retract.] and had no motive other than to ascertain the truth. My challenge to you is to produce a copy of the 60 Minutes evaluation for comparison purposes. My challenge to Mr. Parker is to provide us with the contents of the report. I had two witnesses as to its uselessness, which is why you will NEVER see a comment from Sixty Minutes regarding the report. One witness was Howard Liebengood (see below).
The FALSE accusation, pushed by McAdams' group, is that Sixty Minutes dropped me because of the report. But additional events occurred after that, such as an AIDS specialist visiting me in Lafayette, LA. This "expert" however, did not even know what a table centrifuge was: he did not know they existed, or that blenders could be used to macerate tumors back then. He was in his 20's. I had a lot to teach him about methods used back in the 1960's. Finally, a CBS secretary (I'd given her a little bottle of some Cajun hot sauce) contacted me about a problem from "higher up" -- about "Dan Rather."
Later, Don Hewitt, founder of Sixty Minutes, would tell of Dan Rather's bias on another subject ; he also told C-Span that he had tried to film me, but "the door was slammed in our faces." I was told by the secretary that Brian Duffy (who made great fanfare over the disgraced Gerald Posner's anti-Oswald book, Case Closed) and Dan Rather stopped Sixty Minutes from proceeding, when they suggested a TV Special after they realized they couldn't squeeze in a story inside a 20 minutes segment (the largest segment CBS would allow for the program).
Here is a copy of Sixty Minutes' letter to me weeks later (other emails from 60M that I have, with their headers and authentication, have been seen by honest researchers at conferences held in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014):
MARTIN SHACKELFORD'S COPY OF SIXTY MINUTES' MESSAGE:
DECISION TO NOT FILM:
This was the communication from the segment producer [JVB: this was the
eminent Phil Scheffler] at "60 Minutes," explaining their decision not to do the segment.
It is dated October 19, 2000:We have been looking into Judyth's story off and on, mostly on, for
fourteen months. This morning Don and I reviewed this effort. Our primary
question was whether or not all the information we had gathered could be
transformed into a 60 Minutes segment. The conclusion we reached was that
it could not. As a consequence we have called off our research.We are sorry that you have invested so much time and effort into this
enterprise, and we will honor any financial commitments we have made. We,
too, have invested a great deal of time, and money, in this effort, more
time I believe than we have put in on any story in the 30 years I have
been here. Which makes our decision as difficult for me as I know it is
for you.We wish you well.
LATER, MARTIN SHACKELFORD ALSO WROTE, FOR McADAMS' PEOPLE:
You apparently didn't read it carefully--or take into account that Don
Hewitt STILL says he would like to do the story.
If they didn't find her credible, why did they work on the story for
fourteen months, which they say is MUCH longer than their usual?-- more
time than was devoted to ANY previous "60 Minutes" segment. There's no
mention at all of any question regarding her credibility at that
point--they say only that they couldn't figure out a way to turn her
account into a "60 Minutes" segment--a 15-30 min.report. Perhaps the
complexity didn't lend itself to the format--many have argued that the 45
min. Nigel Turner segment was too brief and superficial, so the same would
seem likely of an even shorter piece.Cheap shots are no substitute for careful reading and thoughtful analysis.Martin
AND FINALLY, SIXTY MINUTES SENT ME FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR LOST WAGES. THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE DONE SUCH A THING IF I HAD NOT BEEN A PERSON OF INTEGRITY OR UNTRUTHFUL IN ANY WAY: