We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Martin Shackelford obtained a B.A. degree in history from the University of Michigan, followed by some graduate work in the field. After leaving university he became a delinquency social worker in Michigan. He is currently retired from that position.
Shackelford has investigated the assassination of John F. Kennedy for over 30 years. His primary focus has been on the photographic evidence. He has a large collection of books, slides, documents, videotapes, DVDs and audio recordings relating to the case.
He has also written a large number of articles on the case and for many years was a major contributor to Fair Play Magazine. His JFK work has also appeared in The Continuing Inquiry, The Third Decade, The Fourth Decade, The Assassination Chronicles, The Investigator, Real Crime Book Digest and Review Magazine. His articles appear on the websites The Assassination Web, JFK Place, JFK Lancer and JFK Assassination Research.
He has contributed to books by other researchers, including Ian MacFarlane, Harrison Livingstone and Michael Benson, and has attended many JFK research conferences, including those in Fredonia New York, Providence Rhode Island, Washington DC, Dallas Texas, Chicago Illinois, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor Michigan, and Sudbury Ontario, presenting papers at some of these.
I'm not sure I have a specific theory, as I'm trying to keep as open a mind as I can as new evidence comes out. Some things which look possible, given what I've seen so far:
1. Some intelligence people (David Atlee Phillips, George DeMohrenschildt, etc.) were involved at some stage with Oswald; whether they were involved with the assassination remains obscure.
2. Lyndon Johnson appears to have had some degree of advanced knowledge of the assassination, according to his mistress; his former crony, Billy Sol Estes, says LBJ, his aide Cliff Carter and their "machine" assassin Mac Wallace were involved (Wallace murdered Agriculture Dept. inspector Henry Marshall in 1962; Marshall was investigating Billy Sol Estes; political maneuvers got the death declared a suicide).
3. Anti-Castro activists may have played a role; attention has focused on the DRE, a group with ties in Miami (including to E. Howard Hunt), New Orleans (Carlos Bringuier and INCA, which was involved in publicizing Oswald's activities there) and Dallas (Sarita Odio, a group that met on Harlandale, etc.); Guy Banister, who employed Oswald in New Orleans, was involved in anti-Castro gun-running.
4. Mob figures appear to have played some role (Jack Ruby obviously included); advance knowledge of the assassination was circulating in Mob circles (Santos Trafficante, Carlos Marcello), including at lower levels where it blended with anti-Castroites (Rose Cheramie, a prostitute traveling with an anti-Castro leader, almost gave the plot away two days before the assassination when arrested in rural Louisiana).
5. There is much evidence pointing to the involvement of Texas oil: (the gathering held the night before the assassination by oilman Clint Murchison, which included LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, John McCloy--later of the Warren Commission, and others, and after which LBJ told his mistress the Kennedy's wouldn't be bothering him after Nov. 22; the involvement of oil industry people throughout (George DeMohrenchildt was an oil geologist with high-level oil industry ties, who worked for a top LBJ backer in 1963; many of the Dallas White Russians who befriended the Oswalds were oil-connected, or tied to defense industry-- like the Paines, where Oswald's wife lived; DeMohrenschildt told friends that oilman H.L. Hunt was behind it).
The confusion enters in because many of these groups blend together:
Oil man Hunt had ties to the Chicago Mob; Murchison had joint business ventures in Louisiana with Carlos Marcello. Oilman DeMohrenschildt worked with the CIA.
The Mob guys and the oil guys put much money into the anti-Castro cause.
The CIA used oil industry jobs as cover, worked with the Mob, and heavily supported anti-Castro groups like the DRE (and worked hard to keep it a secret, even later).
Even with all this, however, this trend toward a blended theory of the assassination is much more coherent than the literally dozens of exclusive theories of past years.
Files said he first met Lee Harvey Oswald in early 1963, in connection with gun-running, in Clinton, Louisiana, via David Atlee Phillips. Both were doing CIA work at the time. There was obviously some government involvement in the assassination, as otherwise they wouldn't have gotten the Secret Service identifications Ruby gave them. Phillips had given him the Remington Fireball for an earlier job.
Files said he saw Frank Sturgis among the crowd of people on Elm Street. He also saw Eugene Brading, whom he had seen at the Cabana with Nicoletti and Rosselli. Files knew Sturgis from anti-Castro activities, as did Rosselli. Files didn't see Oswald at all that day. He and Oswald never discussed the assassination plan.
He would not comment on the murder of J.D. Tippit, except to say that Oswald didn't kill Tippit, and the man who did was still alive at the time of the interview (a later reference possibly referring to the same man indicated he is now in his '80s), and had originally been assigned to kill Oswald. The man came to see Files in Mesquite after the assassination, saying there was a screwup and he had killed a cop...
Problems with the James Files "Confession":
(1) David Atlee Phillips, CIA propaganda expert, would seem an unlikely case officer for a Mob driver and hit man on No Name Key. This seems to be an attempt to tie Files credibly in with Oswald (the Veciana sighting in Dallas of Oswald and Phillips, as Bishop, together), but is doubtful. Also, although John Rosselli was active in Florida preparations for the Bay of Pigs, it is likely that someone other than Phillips introduced him to Files, if Files was at No Name Key. The only thing that sounds much like the real Phillips is the quote near the end about the power of the typewriter.
(2) Lee Harvey Oswald as tour guide.
(3) The plaid reversible coat and the bitten shell casing seem, on the surface, to provide confirmation, but both were details known prior to Files telling his story to anyone. I had heard about the shell well before Files says the fact that it was bitten was discovered (he says 1994). Some people seem to have confused the bitten casing found in the Plaza with the dented casing found in the Depository - these are two separate shell casings.
(4) In connection with Oswald, Clinton and gun-running, David Atlee Phillips again seems inserted artificially into the story here. Oswald and Ruby were both connected to New Orleans people involved in gun-running, but inserting Phillips into the Clinton story is, again, highly doubtful. This is not to say Phillips' role was an innocent one, just that Files seems to be inventing things, or perhaps he was fed inventions.
(5) Files overlooks the fact that the Elm Street crowd was well-photographed. Frank Sturgis was not among the crowd; nor at that point was Eugene Brading in that area; nor was Jack Ruby on the sidewalk below the knoll. None of this is difficult to check. All the relevant photos are in Groden and Trask.
(6) The Secret Service man on the knoll now becomes two men in suits turning people away. There were men turning people away in the area BEFORE the assassination, but not after. It sounds as though Files flubbed some of his borrowed details.
(7) He had documentary evidence, but he destroyed most of it. How convenient.
(8) My guess is that Files was, indeed, Charles Nicoletti's driver, and was involved in the preparations for the Bay of Pigs, but that he is also a good con artist, skillled at blending fact and fiction, which is what I believe he has done here.
The Zapruder film was viewed on the day of the assassination by lab employees after it was processed. It wasn't sold to LIFE until the following day, after being viewed by Secret Service agents and media representatives.
Although Time-LIFE didn't allow public showings of the film, it was available for viewing at the National Archives following the Warren Commission Report's publication, and many researchers viewed it there.
The film was also repeatedly publicly shown in 1969 at the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans, after which bootleg copies circulated widely. The film was also shown at JFK conferences beginning in 1973.
The idea that anyone had 12 years to "work on" the film is, of course, untenable. No one who saw in on November 22 or 23, 1963 has alleged alteration, and the film was readily viewable by researchers by late 1964, which would be a maximum of 12 months, not 12 years. Many of us had seen the film before it was shown on television in March 1975.
I have examined the arguments alleging alteration of the film, and have found nothing convincing in them. I have also examined the Zavada Report, which seems to firmly establish the film at the Archives is the camera original. The two Secret Service copies of the film are also at the Archives (no missing frames).
Although the limousine slowed considerably, it didn't stop. Witnesses alongside the limousine mostly support this - and most witnesses who report a stop were viewing the limo from behind. I don't recall any early statement by Moorman, Hill or the motorcycle officers that the limo stopped. Some confusion has resulted from the fact that the Warren Commission used an average speed, when the limo went both faster and slower than the average at various points.
Martin Shackelford - History
If, as Martin Shackelford claims, Judyth Baker never discussed Oswald or
the assassination with any friends or family between 1963 and the 1990s
out of concern for her own safety, why did she write a letter to Bertrand
Russell ?
He died in February of 1970. At that time she had been busy raising small
children for several years.
If Mr. Russell sent Judyth a reply and she saved it, why wasn't she afraid
that "they" would monitor her mail from the U. S. Post Office -- before it
became the Postal Service -- and kill her? By contacting Mr. Russell,
Judyth was violating the orders David Ferrie had given her in late 1963.
She says tearfully to the camera in her History Channel interview that she
obeyed his orders for thirty years "because I didn't want to die."
Somebody is lying.
My source on Judyth contacting Bertrand Russell is a September 6, 2006
post in John Simkin's "education forum."
On 22 Dec 2006 23:20:17 -0500, "Patting Wig" <***@valoreventures.com>
wrote:
I'm sure Martin is perfectly sincere, if badly misguided on this
issue.
>If, as Martin Shackelford claims, Judyth Baker never discussed Oswald or
>the assassination with any friends or family between 1963 and the 1990s
>out of concern for her own safety, why did she write a letter to Bertrand
>Russell ?
>
>He died in February of 1970. At that time she had been busy raising small
>children for several years.
>
>If Mr. Russell sent Judyth a reply and she saved it, why wasn't she afraid
>that "they" would monitor her mail from the U. S. Post Office -- before it
>became the Postal Service -- and kill her?
Perhaps because there was no "they."
And Judyth had no part in any plot.
And the plot she cribbed from Haslem simply didn't happen.
>By contacting Mr. Russell,
>Judyth was violating the orders David Ferrie had given her in late 1963.
Except that she never in fact knew David Ferrie.
>She says tearfully to the camera in her History Channel interview that she
>obeyed his orders for thirty years "because I didn't want to die."
>Somebody is lying.
>
>My source on Judyth contacting Bertrand Russell is a September 6, 2006
>post in John Simkin's "education forum."
>
>
Are the folks on the Simkin forum finally catching on to Judyth?
Kinda behind the curve, aren't they?
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
"Are the folks on the Simkin forum finally catching on to Judyth?"
"Kinda behind the curve, aren't they?"
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
__________________________________
I am a member of Simkins Forum (among others). There has been no Judyth
discussions in a very long time there.
Once in awhile someone will bring forward an old Judyth thread from when
she was there posting herself. However, it gets very little if any at
all responses.
Sometimes a new member will mention something about her, but usually no
one even replies.
Also, shortly after her book came out, an attempt was made to start a
discussion, but it really didn't go anywhere at all.
It is my opinion that the Simkins forum is divided on Judyth.
Most just don't know anything about her and really don't care or have
any interest about her or her book. Their interssts are in other areas.
Others do believe her, even though only a few actually read her book.
Perhaps they did see her in TMWKK Segment before it got sacked, and
found her to be credible.
More like just blind-faith though.
A majority though, do not believe her at all and apparenty no longer
even want to discuss her there.
So, I conclude that Judyth is just a non-issue at Simkins forum!
On 23 Dec 2006 13:21:50 -0500, ***@webtv.net (Dixie M Dea)
wrote:
>
>
>John McAdams Quote
>
>"Are the folks on the Simkin forum finally catching on to Judyth?"
>
>"Kinda behind the curve, aren't they?"
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>John
>
>The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>__________________________________
>
>Hi John
>
>I am a member of Simkins Forum (among others). There has been no Judyth
>discussions in a very long time there.
>
>Once in awhile someone will bring forward an old Judyth thread from when
>she was there posting herself. However, it gets very little if any at
>all responses.
>
>Sometimes a new member will mention something about her, but usually no
>one even replies.
>
>Also, shortly after her book came out, an attempt was made to start a
>discussion, but it really didn't go anywhere at all.
>
>It is my opinion that the Simkins forum is divided on Judyth.
>
>Most just don't know anything about her and really don't care or have
>any interest about her or her book. Their interssts are in other areas.
>
>Others do believe her, even though only a few actually read her book.
>Perhaps they did see her in TMWKK Segment before it got sacked, and
>found her to be credible.
>More like just blind-faith though.
>
>A majority though, do not believe her at all and apparenty no longer
>even want to discuss her there.
>
>So, I conclude that Judyth is just a non-issue at Simkins forum!
>
>I just wanted to clarify!
>
OK, thanks for the information, and Merry Christmas!
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Although in the past I've been very hard on Martin, as well as
supportive. I don't now or have I ever considered him a liar. He has in
the past done excellent work, and provide a great deal of assistance to
many. myself included.
The supportive evidence for her story, expected to be in Baker's book,
just was not there. Martin was not the only victim of supporting her
story.
I have yet to see any post by any supporter, having had plenty of time to
read and evaluate her book, come forward with anything of "value" gained
by reading it.
"John McAdams" <***@marquette.edu> wrote in message news:***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu.
> On 22 Dec 2006 23:20:17 -0500, "Patting Wig" <***@valoreventures.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'm sure Martin is perfectly sincere, if badly misguided on this
> issue.
>
>
>>If, as Martin Shackelford claims, Judyth Baker never discussed Oswald or
>>the assassination with any friends or family between 1963 and the 1990s
>>out of concern for her own safety, why did she write a letter to Bertrand
>>Russell ?
>>
>>He died in February of 1970. At that time she had been busy raising small
>>children for several years.
>>
>>If Mr. Russell sent Judyth a reply and she saved it, why wasn't she afraid
>>that "they" would monitor her mail from the U. S. Post Office -- before it
>>became the Postal Service -- and kill her?
>
>
> Perhaps because there was no "they."
>
> And Judyth had no part in any plot.
>
> And the plot she cribbed from Haslem simply didn't happen.
>
>
>>By contacting Mr. Russell,
>>Judyth was violating the orders David Ferrie had given her in late 1963.
>
> Except that she never in fact knew David Ferrie.
>
>
>>She says tearfully to the camera in her History Channel interview that she
>>obeyed his orders for thirty years "because I didn't want to die."
>>Somebody is lying.
>>
>>My source on Judyth contacting Bertrand Russell is a September 6, 2006
>>post in John Simkin's "education forum."
>>
>>
>
> Are the folks on the Simkin forum finally catching on to Judyth?
>
> Kinda behind the curve, aren't they?
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>
> .John
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
On 23 Dec 2006 13:38:15 -0500, "James K. Olmstead"
<***@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Although in the past I've been very hard on Martin, as well as
>supportive. I don't now or have I ever considered him a liar. He has in
>the past done excellent work, and provide a great deal of assistance to
>many. myself included.
I've also taken a hard line on the Judyth affair. She has attacked me
personally on the Simkins group. (I am a member of that group but have
only contributed a few posts.)
If Martin was still posting here, the subject header would have been
disallowed, but sometime along the way (I believe when I was on
vacation earlier this year), Martin decided to stop participating
here. So he is not protected like other posters both LN and CT.
Having said that, I think the name-calling is a "low road" approach to
this whole debate.
Agree or disagree at will . but I see no need to call other people
liars.
>
>The supportive evidence for her story, expected to be in Baker's book,
>just was not there. Martin was not the only victim of supporting her
>story.
>
>I have yet to see any post by any supporter, having had plenty of time to
>read and evaluate her book, come forward with anything of "value" gained
>by reading it.
>
>jko
>
>"John McAdams" <***@marquette.edu> wrote in message news:***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu.
>> On 22 Dec 2006 23:20:17 -0500, "Patting Wig" <***@valoreventures.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure Martin is perfectly sincere, if badly misguided on this
>> issue.
>>
>>
>>>If, as Martin Shackelford claims, Judyth Baker never discussed Oswald or
>>>the assassination with any friends or family between 1963 and the 1990s
>>>out of concern for her own safety, why did she write a letter to Bertrand
>>>Russell ?
>>>
>>>He died in February of 1970. At that time she had been busy raising small
>>>children for several years.
>>>
>>>If Mr. Russell sent Judyth a reply and she saved it, why wasn't she afraid
>>>that "they" would monitor her mail from the U. S. Post Office -- before it
>>>became the Postal Service -- and kill her?
>>
>>
>> Perhaps because there was no "they."
>>
>> And Judyth had no part in any plot.
>>
>> And the plot she cribbed from Haslem simply didn't happen.
>>
>>
>>>By contacting Mr. Russell,
>>>Judyth was violating the orders David Ferrie had given her in late 1963.
>>
>> Except that she never in fact knew David Ferrie.
>>
>>
>>>She says tearfully to the camera in her History Channel interview that she
>>>obeyed his orders for thirty years "because I didn't want to die."
>>>Somebody is lying.
>>>
>>>My source on Judyth contacting Bertrand Russell is a September 6, 2006
>>>post in John Simkin's "education forum."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Are the folks on the Simkin forum finally catching on to Judyth?
>>
>> Kinda behind the curve, aren't they?
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>>
>> .John
>>
>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
Peter Fokes wrote:
> On 23 Dec 2006 13:38:15 -0500, "James K. Olmstead"
> <***@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Although in the past I've been very hard on Martin, as well as
> >supportive. I don't now or have I ever considered him a liar. He has in
> >the past done excellent work, and provide a great deal of assistance to
> >many. myself included.
>
> I'll vouch for that, Jim.
>
> I've also taken a hard line on the Judyth affair. She has attacked me
> personally on the Simkins group. (I am a member of that group but have
> only contributed a few posts.)
>
> If Martin was still posting here, the subject header would have been
> disallowed, but sometime along the way (I believe when I was on
> vacation earlier this year), Martin decided to stop participating
> here. So he is not protected like other posters both LN and CT.
>
> Having said that, I think the name-calling is a "low road" approach to
> this whole debate.
>
> Agree or disagree at will . but I see no need to call other people
> liars.
I said Judyth could be the liar if Martin isn't. She lied on camera for
the History Channel. She said she obeyed David Ferrie's orders to keep
absolutely quiet about Oswald between the time of their conversation in
late 1963 and the exit from home of her youngest child.
If "liar" is the wrong word for Judyth, then please explain how she could
obey David Ferrie's orders AND correspond with Bertrand Russell through
international mail, which Judyth knew was vulnerable to eavesdroppers.
She said on camera that Mr. Ferrie wasn't the only person looking for
signs that she was drawing attention to herself. She said that Mr. Ferrie
said that Santos Trafficante would be looking for signs of attention
seeking. Mr. Ferrie supposedly didn't even want Judyth to achieve
anything else in science or cancer research because that could make her a
magnet for people who might express interest in what she had in New
Orleans and with whom. If she obeyed that order, then why correspond with
an internationally famous mathematician, placing her name, address and
handwriting in the possession of a foreign government ? Judyth lied on
camera for the History Channel.
>
> PF
>
>
> >
> >The supportive evidence for her story, expected to be in Baker's book,
> >just was not there. Martin was not the only victim of supporting her
> >story.
> >
> >I have yet to see any post by any supporter, having had plenty of time to
> >read and evaluate her book, come forward with anything of "value" gained
> >by reading it.
> >
> >jko
> >
> >"John McAdams" <***@marquette.edu> wrote in message news:***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu.
> >> On 22 Dec 2006 23:20:17 -0500, "Patting Wig" <***@valoreventures.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm sure Martin is perfectly sincere, if badly misguided on this
> >> issue.
> >>
> >>
> >>>If, as Martin Shackelford claims, Judyth Baker never discussed Oswald or
> >>>the assassination with any friends or family between 1963 and the 1990s
> >>>out of concern for her own safety, why did she write a letter to Bertrand
> >>>Russell ?
> >>>
> >>>He died in February of 1970. At that time she had been busy raising small
> >>>children for several years.
> >>>
> >>>If Mr. Russell sent Judyth a reply and she saved it, why wasn't she afraid
> >>>that "they" would monitor her mail from the U. S. Post Office -- before it
> >>>became the Postal Service -- and kill her?
> >>
> >>
> >> Perhaps because there was no "they."
> >>
> >> And Judyth had no part in any plot.
> >>
> >> And the plot she cribbed from Haslem simply didn't happen.
> >>
> >>
> >>>By contacting Mr. Russell,
> >>>Judyth was violating the orders David Ferrie had given her in late 1963.
> >>
> >> Except that she never in fact knew David Ferrie.
> >>
> >>
> >>>She says tearfully to the camera in her History Channel interview that she
> >>>obeyed his orders for thirty years "because I didn't want to die."
> >>>Somebody is lying.
> >>>
> >>>My source on Judyth contacting Bertrand Russell is a September 6, 2006
> >>>post in John Simkin's "education forum."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Are the folks on the Simkin forum finally catching on to Judyth?
> >>
> >> Kinda behind the curve, aren't they?
> >>
> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
> >>
> >> .John
> >>
> >> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> >
> >
Patting Wig wrote:
> Peter Fokes wrote:
>> On 23 Dec 2006 13:38:15 -0500, "James K. Olmstead"
>> <***@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Although in the past I've been very hard on Martin, as well as
>>> supportive. I don't now or have I ever considered him a liar. He has in
>>> the past done excellent work, and provide a great deal of assistance to
>>> many. myself included.
>> I'll vouch for that, Jim.
>>
>> I've also taken a hard line on the Judyth affair. She has attacked me
>> personally on the Simkins group. (I am a member of that group but have
>> only contributed a few posts.)
>>
>> If Martin was still posting here, the subject header would have been
>> disallowed, but sometime along the way (I believe when I was on
>> vacation earlier this year), Martin decided to stop participating
>> here. So he is not protected like other posters both LN and CT.
>>
>> Having said that, I think the name-calling is a "low road" approach to
>> this whole debate.
>>
>> Agree or disagree at will . but I see no need to call other people
>> liars.
>
> I said Judyth could be the liar if Martin isn't. She lied on camera for
> the History Channel. She said she obeyed David Ferrie's orders to keep
> absolutely quiet about Oswald between the time of their conversation in
> late 1963 and the exit from home of her youngest child.
>
You are not allowed to call other posters here liars. Knock it off.
> If "liar" is the wrong word for Judyth, then please explain how she could
> obey David Ferrie's orders AND correspond with Bertrand Russell through
> international mail, which Judyth knew was vulnerable to eavesdroppers.
>
> She said on camera that Mr. Ferrie wasn't the only person looking for
> signs that she was drawing attention to herself. She said that Mr. Ferrie
> said that Santos Trafficante would be looking for signs of attention
> seeking. Mr. Ferrie supposedly didn't even want Judyth to achieve
> anything else in science or cancer research because that could make her a
> magnet for people who might express interest in what she had in New
> Orleans and with whom. If she obeyed that order, then why correspond with
> an internationally famous mathematician, placing her name, address and
> handwriting in the possession of a foreign government ? Judyth lied on
> camera for the History Channel.
>
>> PF
>>
>>
>>> The supportive evidence for her story, expected to be in Baker's book,
>>> just was not there. Martin was not the only victim of supporting her
>>> story.
>>>
>>> I have yet to see any post by any supporter, having had plenty of time to
>>> read and evaluate her book, come forward with anything of "value" gained
>>> by reading it.
>>>
>>> jko
>>>
>>> "John McAdams" <***@marquette.edu> wrote in message news:***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu.
>>>> On 22 Dec 2006 23:20:17 -0500, "Patting Wig" <***@valoreventures.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure Martin is perfectly sincere, if badly misguided on this
>>>> issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If, as Martin Shackelford claims, Judyth Baker never discussed Oswald or
>>>>> the assassination with any friends or family between 1963 and the 1990s
>>>>> out of concern for her own safety, why did she write a letter to Bertrand
>>>>> Russell ?
>>>>>
>>>>> He died in February of 1970. At that time she had been busy raising small
>>>>> children for several years.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Mr. Russell sent Judyth a reply and she saved it, why wasn't she afraid
>>>>> that "they" would monitor her mail from the U. S. Post Office -- before it
>>>>> became the Postal Service -- and kill her?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps because there was no "they."
>>>>
>>>> And Judyth had no part in any plot.
>>>>
>>>> And the plot she cribbed from Haslem simply didn't happen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> By contacting Mr. Russell,
>>>>> Judyth was violating the orders David Ferrie had given her in late 1963.
>>>> Except that she never in fact knew David Ferrie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> She says tearfully to the camera in her History Channel interview that she
>>>>> obeyed his orders for thirty years "because I didn't want to die."
>>>>> Somebody is lying.
>>>>>
>>>>> My source on Judyth contacting Bertrand Russell is a September 6, 2006
>>>>> post in John Simkin's "education forum."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Are the folks on the Simkin forum finally catching on to Judyth?
>>>>
>>>> Kinda behind the curve, aren't they?
>>>>
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>>>>
>>>> .John
>>>>
>>>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>>
>
>
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Patting Wig wrote:
> > Peter Fokes wrote:
> >> On 23 Dec 2006 13:38:15 -0500, "James K. Olmstead"
> >> <***@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Although in the past I've been very hard on Martin, as well as
> >>> supportive. I don't now or have I ever considered him a liar. He has in
> >>> the past done excellent work, and provide a great deal of assistance to
> >>> many. myself included.
> >> I'll vouch for that, Jim.
> >>
> >> I've also taken a hard line on the Judyth affair. She has attacked me
> >> personally on the Simkins group. (I am a member of that group but have
> >> only contributed a few posts.)
> >>
> >> If Martin was still posting here, the subject header would have been
> >> disallowed, but sometime along the way (I believe when I was on
> >> vacation earlier this year), Martin decided to stop participating
> >> here. So he is not protected like other posters both LN and CT.
> >>
> >> Having said that, I think the name-calling is a "low road" approach to
> >> this whole debate.
> >>
> >> Agree or disagree at will . but I see no need to call other people
> >> liars.
> >
> > I said Judyth could be the liar if Martin isn't. She lied on camera for
> > the History Channel. She said she obeyed David Ferrie's orders to keep
> > absolutely quiet about Oswald between the time of their conversation in
> > late 1963 and the exit from home of her youngest child.
> >
>
> You are not allowed to call other posters here liars. Knock it off.
Does Judyth still post to Dr. McAdams' group? I can pop in her History
Channel DVD and listen to her say she kept quiet for thirty years under
orders from David Ferrie, then I can read about her blabbing to Bertrand
Russell and her own sister. The DVD is my property, and so is my
computer. That means I can call Judyth a liar. I have evidence, and so
do you.
If you can't call Judyth Baker a liar, then you can't call me a liar.
Alright then, a police officer visited my junior high school in December
of 1963 and told all the kids never to say that someone other than Oswald
shot Kennedy. The officer said if we did make that allegation, a scary -
looking man named David Ferrie would kill us.
IBEX, TEXAS
Ibex has no 19th Century history, appearing in 1921 with the discovery of oil by the Colorado oil company Ibex (hence the name). Eager to exploit the reserves, a huge and costly ($300,000) refinery was constructed. Ibex became a boom town - a magnet for unemployed roughnecks and roustabouts plus their families.
A post office opened in 1923 although it's lifespan was brief. Ibex had the necessary businesses for longevity, including civilizing amenities like a four room school that saw triple duty as a church and meeting house.
Ibex's death was the result of a fire in 1925. Production decreased to a fraction of its previous output and people fled, seeking work in other boomtowns or cities with a more stable economy.
Enough people remained for 48 people to be counted in 1948, but by 1960, it had dropped to a mere 35 residents - a figure it has retained for the 1970, 1980 and 1990 census. It has transformed into an agricultural community but its brief "golden years" are in the distant past. In the mid 1990s the population was somewhere around 25.
Dr. Jesse Martin Shackelford, MD 1869-1941
Dr. Shackelford was born and reared in Irisburg, Virginia, the son of William George and Pattie Martin Shackelford, a direct descendent of General Joseph Martin.
He was educated in the public schools of his community and then attended Virginia Polytechnic Institute at Blacksburg, later preparing for the practice of medicine at the Baltimore Medical College.
Upon completing his degree in medicine, Dr. Shackelford returned to his native community to practice medicine. He bought property in Irisburg and built a home, a wing of which was used as a hospital from 1895 to 1899.
Five years later, he moved to Martinsville where he remained. On April 29, 1921, Dr. Shackelford purchased the Teague residence on Church Street and created a hospital there. The Shackelford Hospital was established in 1921.
“A great humanitarian, surgeon and humorist.”
Dr. Jesse Shackelford originated the Hospital Association of Virginia and also started the Henry County Medical Society.
Dr. Shackelford married Fannie Gardner Armstrong, born July 2, 1869 and died February 26, 1937.
Martin Shackelford - History
MARTIN SHACKLEFORD RESCUE ASSOCIATION
I am forming a society of well meaning people who wish to get together to
assist in any way possible with the rescue & rehabilitation of well known
JFK Assassination Martin Shackleford.
Martin was known to us for years as collaborator with Harrison Livingstone
on such seminally interesting books as High Treason 2 and 3 too if I'm not
mistaken.
A figure of moderation and a voice of fair minded CT reason here on aajfk,
he never bottom posted when a free top was available, and kept his replies
short & to the point, but I think we can all agree he was one of the good
guys who never swore at people or said anything too dogmatic. However -
and here's the main point - since Martin's soul was captured by a low
flying demon of the species Imaginativus Totalis, he has been imprisoned
in a far tower & forced to spew the most abominable verbal garbage all day
every day proclaiming the excellence & wonder of his monstrous captor.
Rather in the fashion of the well known Lord of the Rings story, I propose
a Fellowship of the Green Glass, to be composed of persons of all ranks,
to organise & carry out a flanking mission into Imaginativus Totalis Land
& attempt a rescue. All those willing and eligible to conjoin in such an
exploit should sign with their names or their mark below, and we will be
in touch with you by carrier pigeon
Trulye
Ye Burgomeister Seatonne
Very funny (sort of), but why not simply drop the subject altogether,
now and forever, Amen! - prw (Canuck)
##PS says : With that kind of attitude, Mordor would never have been
liberated.
In the past, when I've stopped posting for a time, the attack group has
posted
a flurry of messages suggesting that I no longer believed Judyth's account,
and declaring victory--I couldn't let that nonsense stand, so things would
resume.
Well, I’m loathe to jump in here because I have expressed my opinion
re Shackelford on more than one occasion and might rightfully be
accused of bias. But I don’t think you can just jump into this thing
willy nilly. You need a structured program like the AA 12-step thing
as Shackelford has been in denial for more than nine years (signed on
to Team Judyth in May ‘99) and has refused to give an inch on anything
that might undermine Judyth’s (and his own) claim to credibility such
as the 60 Minutes fiasco, the Cancun disaster and, now again, the Mary
Ferrell email. He needs to make a clean breast of things. Moreover,
the program should be open to others as well. For example, you
mention Harry Livingstone, who was the faux publisher of Judyth’s
vanity book, and who told the AARP that the medical evidence in the
JFK inquiry "is a fraud and a lie" (forgery all over the place).
Shackelford repeatedly has expressed his admiration for Livingstone’s
medical analysis so you see the connection. I have a list of other
possible candidate as well but first maybe we had better work on the
issue at hand. In medical circles, I think they call that triage.
The really sad thing is that the NEXT time Martin comes forward to promote
a self-proclaimed Oswald mistress/CIA bioweapons engineer/ solution to all
things mysterious about the JFK assassination/ eyewitness to the genesis
of the AIDS epidemic/etc., etc., etc., no one is going to believe the poor
guy.
Always good to have the "expert" opinion of someone who can't tell the
difference between the AARP (Am. Assoc. of Retired Persons) and the
ARRB (Assass. Records Review Board).
Glass houses, Leyden.
Well, Im loathe to jump in here because I have expressed my opinion
re Shackelford on more than one occasion and might rightfully be
accused of bias. But I dont think you can just jump into this thing
willy nilly. You need a structured program like the AA 12-step thing
as Shackelford has been in denial for more than nine years (signed on
to Team Judyth in May 99) and has refused to give an inch on anything
that might undermine Judyths (and his own) claim to credibility such
as the 60 Minutes fiasco, the Cancun disaster and, now again, the Mary
Ferrell email. He needs to make a clean breast of things. Moreover,
the program should be open to others as well. For example, you
mention Harry Livingstone, who was the faux publisher of Judyths
vanity book, and who told the AARP that the medical evidence in the
JFK inquiry "is a fraud and a lie" (forgery all over the place).
Shackelford repeatedly has expressed his admiration for Livingstones
medical analysis so you see the connection. I have a list of other
possible candidate as well but first maybe we had better work on the
issue at hand. In medical circles, I think they call that triage.
Let’s see, Shackelford, you testified before the ARRP, didn’t you?
Your presentation is on line. Pretty exciting stuff -- looks like about
two-three minutes worth of copy, citing Tony Summers and other CTs. Why
did you bother? No one on the panel was sufficiently interested to even
ask a question. Too bad you didn’t know Judyth then. That would have
gotten their attention when you described her sleeping with Oswald
virtually on her wedding night and working to get Castro in a secret
underground lab. (She would have wanted to skip that part about killing
off test subjects.) Judyth, of course, took a pass on the ARRB and the
HSCA and the Clay Shaw trial and the WC investigation. It’s almost
enough to make you doubt her sincerity… unless, of course, you’re
Martin Shackelford.
It was the AARP that Platzman tried to win over:
From:hplatz Jul-15, 2007 6:25 PM 2001
I apologize for posting before reading all that has been said. But I
have personal knowledge of a key witness.
(1) Bugliosi says that a book by the woman who claims to have had an
affair with Oswald, Judyth Baker, was in fact written by the author
Harry Livingstone. I know he didn't write it because I was there and
saw them fighting over it for over a year. He didn't write it., and he
didn't edit it nearly enough.
(2) Several of these so-called myths show an unfamiliarity with the
subject, hard to believe for someone who has churned out 1,600 pages
-- but the literature is vast and his temperament is a hot one. His OJ
book was a fun, if hysteria-laced, read. He was right, but he really
never got around to the deeper fIaws in the defense case. I know too
much about this subject to find him much fun. If anyone would like a
few quick words on each, I'd oblige.
(3) Oswald was a patsy, as claimed. Indeed, a few years back, 60
Minutes promised they would run a story on Judyth, which Don Hewitt
pleaded with me not to take anywhere else, saying "this is the biggest
story we will ever do." What they found is not the usual "low-hanging
fruit" 60 Minutes picks for its investigations. The subject needs
research. That research was, for them, too costly -- and it was
sabotaged by the gentleman who now edits the US News & World Report. I
was there to see him do it.
CBS' lead consultant, Howard Liebengood, begged them, that year and
the year after, to give her story the "platform" she deserves.
Liebengood was Sen. Howard Baker's right-hand man for decades. On
Baker's Watergate Committee, he was Fred Thompson's Deputy Counsel.
His experience in intelligence oversight extends from the Church
Committee thru the Los Alamos threats. He was the man behind the so-
called Baker Report. Then he was chief of staff to Sen. Thompson, and
after Thompson went off to Law & Order, to majority leader, Bill
Frist. If Thompson became president, he would no doubt have been the
White House chief of staff -- had he not died at age 62.
Oswald was part of a plot - one to kill Castro, not Kennedy. Garrison
came so close to discovering this, but lacking enough evidence, his
investigation veered off course. Oswald was, as one still-living major
figure told me and as has been reported elsewhere, "one of Bobby's
boys." Judyth Baker, and less centrally, Lee Oswald, were part of a
plot to use lung cancer cells to kill Castro. That is the short
story.
Martin Shackelford - History
1830 Florida State Census
transcribed by Genealogy Trails Transcription Team
In 1821 the Territory of Florida was organized into two counties, Escambia and St. Johns. Escambia County, formerly known as ‘West Florida’, comprised the territory west of the Suwanee River, and St. Johns County, formerly known as ‘East Florida’, included the rest of the territory of Florida. The first Census presented herein is that taken by the United States Government in the year of 1830.
During that period (1821-1830) the two original counties had been divided and subdivided, making seventeen counties in the first census. This census reported a total population of 34,730, representing two races, (18,185 white and 16,345 negro).”
(Ref: The Seventh Census of the State of Florida, 1945, page 4)
The entire 1830 census, Florida’s first census available to the scholar, has been copied and indexed in one general index, showing the county wherein the head of household, by name, lived.
This census has been copied by myself, with the exception of three counties: Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton, which were submitted in typed form to us, by Judge Guy McClain, County Judge, Lafayette County, Mayo, Florida.
Some of the handwriting is difficult to read on the microfilm copy (even on the original books also), and unless one was familiar with every family name in a county, it would be impossible to copy the names absolutely correctly. However, a diligent effort has been put forth to copy the names as correctly as possible, and to omit none in this index.
Note that only the white persons were listed by name. All colored were shown in the category of free persons of color, or slaves, by number only, not by name.
In a personal examination of this census for any name which may interest the scholar, the information which can be added by so doing, or having this done, is the age bracket of persons living in each household, as:
Male: Ages under 5 5 to 10 10 to 15 15 to 20 20 to 30 etc.
Female: Ages under 5 5 to 10 10 to 15 15 to 20 20 to 30 etc.
In the following index all names which bear the prefix, de, del, etc., are listed in order of the name spelling without the prefix, alphabetically. Question mark indicates name was not completely decipherable. Many names are obviously misspelled, but no attempt has been made to correct the spelling. Thus, a name should be searched for by sound as well as correct spelling.
1830 FLORIDA – U.S. CENSUS
"The volume reproduced on this roll (microfilm), is labeled backstrip Fifth Census 1830 Population Florida. It contains the population schedules of the census of 1830 for the Territory of Florida. The schedules for the several counties then in existence appear in the following order (on the microfilm roll):
Mosquito: 1-2 1-3
Nassau: 3-9(5)-17
Duval: 10-19 19-37
Saint Johns: 20-35 39-69
Alachua: 36-52 71-103
Escambia (in part) 53-66 105-131
Escambia (in part) 67-71 133-141
Walton (in part) 72-79 143-157
Jackson: 80-95 159-189
Washington: 102-106 (202) (210)
Monroe: 106-11 211-221
Leon: 112-137 223-273
Gadsden: 138-155 275-(308)
Jefferson: 156-170 311-339
Hamilton: 171-175 341-349
Madison: 176-179 351-(356)
Within each of these political divisions, the information in the schedules is subsumed under the names of heads of families and comprises, for each family, facts of the age of group distribution of it of its members (taken by sixes)(including distinction between the free and slave negroes), and of physical disabilities. The only names that appear in the schedule, therefore, are the names of heads of families or of those individuals who were not associated with a family unit.
An original of a statement signed by the Indian agent to the Seminole Indians which is attached to sheet 53 of the volume indicates that the council of that tribe refused to permit the enumeration of the negroes residing in the Seminole Indians.
A census sheet extends over two pages, and therefore two frames of the microcopy must be examined to obtain all information respecting a particular family or individual. It should be noted that these records bear three sets of numbers: On Page which contains the beginning columns of the sheet appears, in pencil, the sheet numbering on the opposite page appears both a stamped sheet number and a penciled page number. When more than two successful pages are blank, they have not been photographed, and the omissions have been indicated at the proper point in the film.
In referring to this volume, scholars may wish to state that it is among the records of the Bureau of Census in the National Archives. An appropriate citation of a specific page in the volume is the following (example):
Fifth Census (1830), Florida, Sheet 156 (p. 311)
(Ref. Microfilm Roll 1830 U.S. Census).
BEGINNING 1830 FLORIDA CENSUS
As enumerated by the United States
Names of all heads of household, A to Z
All counties
Why I run the Peachtree: Martin Shackelford
Quote: "Through diet and exercise, I'm down to 200 pounds, off all my medications — high blood pressure, diabetes, and cholesterol — and am ready to run the race that I grew up hearing about but never dreamed I'd run."
Residence: Liberty, Ky.
Number of Peachtrees: This will be my first.
Why do you run? This will be my first year healthy enough to run the Peachtree Road Race. I have weighed more than 300 pounds for over 20 years. . This year will be the first year that I, along with my two younger brothers, who still live in Georgia, will all run together.
Why did you start running? I began running as a part of my cardio training during the 2010 Casey County — Kentucky — Biggest Loser program, which I won with a 23-percent weight loss in 12 weeks.
What will running in your first Peachtree mean to you? This event will have special meaning for me because my brothers have always been fit — one brother has even run in a prior Peachtree. But as of 15 months ago I was over 350 pounds and never dreamed I would get the chance to do something so significant and athletic with the people I love most.
What do you tell people about the race? It will be a personal-best-for-me run in this year's Peachtree Road Race. The oldest member of Team Shackelford can't wait to run! It'll be three against over 55,000.
What is your favorite race T-shirt? In this year's design contest, I like the one that has the red, white and blue peach set against the large 2011 design.
What do you like about the race? That it's not just a 10K. To me the Peachtree Road Race is going to be a six-mile patriotic party for athletes.
What other races have you participated in? Since losing 150 pounds, I've run in five races this year. The last was the 2011 Lexington [Kentucky] Half Marathon. I ran that in 1 hour, 57 minutes.
A proper goodbye
But longtime friends and associates weren&rsquot about to let the soft-spoken Montgomery slip out of the courthouse for the last time without a proper goodbye. On Dec. 17, the courtroom where Montgomery presided for county commissioners meetings was turned into a party room.
Plaques and certificates were read, including from his &ldquocourthouse family,&rdquo the governor, and a certificate from the state House of Representatives verifying that an accompanying Texas flag had flown over the state Capitol. After 24 years, Montgomery left office as popular as he was on his first day.
&ldquoI can&rsquot think of anything bad to say about Ross,&rdquo said Lanham Martin, Precinct 3 county commissioner.
Not that he was looking for something bad to say about him. In fact, Martin sought Montgomery&rsquos advice when he first considered running for county commissioner. Ever since taking office, Martin has liked what he has seen from Montgomery as a leader. The county judge lets commissioners do most of the talking. But if a commissioner, or a visitor, talks a little too long, Montgomery steps in.
&ldquoWhen he thinks enough&rsquos enough, he lets everybody know enough&rsquos enough,&rdquo Martin said.
For the past 15 years, Jeannie Balliew has been the secretary to Montgomery, the county attorney, and the county extension service. Montgomery is as easy-going with employees, Balliew said, as he is with the public.
&ldquoHe never demands anything&rdquo Balliew said, &ldquoIf he wants anything, he asks you.&rdquo
Martin Shackelford - History
I'd like to thank Noel Holobeck at the St. Louis Public Library for pointing me in the right direction to the glean the most from existing books on the subject and the staff at the Father Faherty's Jesuit Archives, especially Nancy Merz. They not only provided information of the all-important Jesuit connection, but also a large number of diocesan priests.
To put a limit on the scope of this document I arbitrarily chose to include the time period of 1759 through 1900. I also made the conscious decision to arrange this work in a chronological order as opposed to alphabetically. The reason for this that many of the early churches changed names nearly as often as they changed addresses. However, being on the Internet it should be relatively easy for everyone to click "Edit", "Find" to retrieve the info you need.
( Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church )
( St. Joseph of the Angels Church )
Now the Parkway United Church of Christ in Des Peres, Missouri. See Bob Buecher's compilation of early Parish Records
Episcopal
lindainmo/mo_imm_luth/) for images of the actual church records.
Website: www.shaare-emeth.org
1828, at Bonhomme and Price Roads, the village of Central was established and became the center of community life for West St. Louis County. St. Martin's,
the first Roman Catholic Church in West County, was established in 1842. Current church is at 106 North Meramec, Clayton, MO 63105-3788. (314) 726-1221
Website: www.ti-stl.org
Archdiocese of St. Louis. Archdiocese of St. Louis - Three Centuries of Catholicism 1700-2000. Editions du Signe, Strasbourg, France, 2001
Brunsmann, Sandra M. Early Irish Settlers in St. Louis Missouri and Dogtown Neighborhood 1798 - 2000. U. S. A.: Gene Del, Inc., 2000.
Dry, Camille N. Pictorial St. Louis - the great metropolis of the Mississippi Valley: a topigraphical survey drawn in perspective, A. D. 1875. Edited by R. J. Compton. St. Louis: 1876 (reprint St. Louis: McGraw-Young Publishing, 1997).
III. Dilemmas for the future Chinese Documentary
Although system-based documentary filmmaking has grown toward the orientation of industrialization external factors seem more discouraging for the development of commercialized documentaries in terms of capital allocation and distribution scope, due to the increased constrictions imposed by the general climate of recent years. This results in the growth of mega projects, relating to both the heroic revolutionary history and current-politics. Argued by two annually released official reports on China’s documentary industry 14, the industry has risen steadily year by year, on which seemingly nothing can impact. As claimed by the Study Report of the Development of Chinese Documentary, the gross revenue of the industry reached up to 3 billion yuan in 2014, even if excluding ‘Where Are We Going (爸爸去哪儿), which is only another version of a television reality show, far from a true documentary film.’15 Nonetheless, in 2015, the documentary industry ‘input 3.024 billion yuan, with its general income attains 4.679 billion yuan’, and ‘the sudden rise of reality-show programs’ became an eye-catching phenomenon for example, ‘in 2015, reality show blockbusters appeared constantly, especially the triumphant reality-show Survivor Games (跟着贝尔去冒险) that is co-produced by the Shanghai Documentary Channel and the American Discovery Channel’16. Apparently, live-action filmmaking has contributed a huge amount of industrial profits for reality shows that feature physical competition, game playing, and expedition. It is stated by the report that ‘new-media documentaries skyrocketed’17 in 2015. Another report issued in the same year proposes the idea that ‘reality shows have led the direction of domestic creative endeavors’18. The academic accuracy of those two reports is indeed doubtful. Reality shows that were produced by the BBC veterans had already hit high audience ratings in the 1960s, such as The Course of Justice, I Want to Be a Doctor and the later Airport, Driving School Children’s Hospital, etc. Thus the proposition on ‘domestic creative endeavors’ is by no means appropriate.
During its development, documentary film has been committed to the approach of engaging social reality by presenting a ‘truth and morality narrative’. Even though such commitment seems broad, at least its goals signify a primary need of solemnity and definitiveness rather than amusement or entertainment. What ultimately determines the industrialization development of China’s documentary lies in the extent to which the institutional productive forces can be emancipated and the latitude of how much the market can be opened up nonetheless, it is worrying, considering the current state of affairs.
Undoubtedly, separating itself from the dense historical context brings about limitations and inappropriateness for system-based documentaries, in terms of either aesthetics or politicization. China’s system-based documentaries of the 1990s that are concerned about realities ‘emerged simultaneously’, the development trajectory of which is marked by transformations that happened to documentarians since 2011. For example, the filmmaker Sun Zengtian (孙增田) who specialized in employing poetic film language to portray disappearing ethnic-minority cultures in the early 1990s and made The Last Mountain God (最后的山神) and The God of Deer (神鹿呀，我们的神 鹿 ), and who turned to directing the one-hundred-episode series The Communists (共产党人) (2011) afterwards. The filmmaker Chen Xiaoqing (陈晓卿) who is the chief director of A Bite of China had earlier made Dragon’s Back (龙脊) (1994) about the childhood education in the remote mountain area. Duan Jinchuan (段锦川) who initiated China’s direct-cinema style with the work No. 16, Barkhor South Street, and Jiang Yue who canonized the vérité mode in China via his classic film The Other Bank (1993), collaboratively produced the documentary series Peking Opera. The documentary film Yin and Yang (阴阳) (1997) possesses the reputation of being ‘the most profound documentary film on China’s rural subject matters’ while its filmmaker later produced the Treasure and Dream (财富与梦想) (2010) and the documentary series Revelation of the Northern Shanxi (陕北启示录) (2011) that regards the birthplace of the heroic revolution. Peng Hui (彭辉)’s documentary film Balance ( 平 衡 ) on the Tibetan-Antelope protection had paved the original story for Lu Chuan (陆川)’s fiction film Kkexili: Mountain Patrol (可可西里), but during the past dozen years, Peng has switched to concentrating on the mega documentary series Allegiance (忠贞) that is about more than ten first-ladies of the republic. Among those filmmakers, Jiang Yue and Duan Jinchuan are more inclined to the identity of independents, on account of their independent work The Storm (暴风骤雨), except for which there is scarcely any masterpiece about social realities. To such extent, the convergence and interaction between the system and the independents has almost completely withered.
China’s media-based documentary filmmaking has always been looking into trans-national collaborations for production, distribution and development. The overseas capital that has invested in Chinese subjects has been especially embraced in these examples ranging from The Great Wall (万里长城) (Japan, 1993) to Born in China (诞生在中国) (USA, 2016) that is about rare wild animals. However, China’s role as either the subject or the supplier of raw materials has barely changed, except for Born in China, financed by the Disney Company of America, but credits the director’s role to Lu Chuan. But in view of the fact that according to China’s film laws foreign directors are forbidden to do filmmaking on rare species of animals in China, added to the producer-centered system of the Disney Company, it seems clear that the specific co-production structure of this film signifies little earth-shaking transformation.
China’s independent documentary cinema has grown to be distinct from the western independent models, because of its self-finance approach to achieve autonomy. This guarantees little commercial value. More significantly, its difference or deviation from the mainstream ideology in pursuit of expressing diverse views and values probably traps China’s independents into political risks that fluctuate corresponding to the dynamics of the general environment. Therefore, independent documentary filmmaking is deemed to be ‘a very special social and spiritual landscape’19 of China. Since 2010, the vital independent documentary film festivals and exhibition activities have gradually been restricted and eventually canceled. It has been estimated that, ‘it was after 2010 that it [the Beijing Independent Film Festival] had been “watched” and oppressed, which is may be related to some changes of the general environment.’20 ‘Since October 2012, drastic changes have happened, and the circumstance suddenly got worse. This resulted in the forced termination of some domestic independent exhibition activities, including the CIFF (China Independent Film Festival) that seems to have been hurt by this misfortune.’21 One of the founders of the CIFF states that ‘the period of 2003-2006 established the festival, and it flourished during 2007-2011 and gradually withered from 2012 to 2016.’22 The other domestic independent documentary film festivals, exhibitions, and screening organizations, such as ‘Qi Fang’ (齐放), a grassroots alliance of screening, basically share the same fate with the CIFF, and ‘independent filmmakers are forced to be performance artists, having blind film exhibitions with candles in hands.’23 The space available to devoting oneself to independent documentary filmmaking and distribution at home is more and more compressed, which leads Cui Weiping ( 崔卫 平 ) to argue in an article written in 2002 that ‘an alternative solution for the independent documentary filmmaking is to expand outwards’ 24 . However, as specified by the Film Industry Promotion Law of the People’s Republic of China that has been implemented since March 2017, ‘films without a permit for public release are not allowed to be distributed, exhibited or take part in any film festival (or exhibition). The person who supplies the non permitted film to a film exhibition will be forbidden to work on related film activities.’ The external power of authority always overwhelms arts and aesthetic discourse nonetheless, documentary still exists as a kind of capacity, or more accurately, a kind of right. The international production of Born in China is characterized by speedy changes, multiple facets and complexities.
The masses are troubled by a sense of crisis and anxiety, wherein the documentary film acts as a carrier of people’s memories and a method of historiography. Independent filmmakers adopt documentary as an apparatus to experience and show authentically as expressed by, ‘I require myself to connect with the society intimately … it brings me about a feeling of down to earth’ 25, and ‘I am more fascinated by the glamour of the subject of her/his own and the splendor of humanity, rather than presupposing some resisting gesture.’ 26 ‘Gradually, I felt Ba Ya resembles a big tree, which is still able to continue growing, and that becomes a lush crown that protects the world, even if its branches have been chopped apart. As a female I likewise, saw in Ba Ya the self-possessed state for dealing with everything that ever happened and to be yet encountered.’ 27 In the process of handling realities, benefiting from life experiences and the attitudes of others, documentary filmmakers continuously realize and complete one’s self-hood. Having grown for almost thirty years, China’s independent documentary cinema has shaped ‘an indirect psychological picture on China’s social structure’, and narrates a living image-history full of historical textures and life details in the best way, allowing voices of people from the most subaltern world to be perceived and reverberated inside the tunnel of history.
‘Once there is a place possessing memory, there requires a history’ 28, which then requires a documentary film to narrate the history. However, at the present time, although industrial and politicizing documentaries that are produced by the mainstream media have claimed loudly by means of the aggressive aesthetic-discourse that they somehow show truth, it remains an aesthetic that is considerably short of real-life engagement. This is not to negate the achievement of system-based commercial documentaries. Rather, based on the specific contemporary social-historical experience, this paper raises the question, whether it is possible for diverse documentary practices to co-exist. It argues that a specific practice should not be merged, annexed, or abolished by the others. In fact in some special cases, different practices benefit from their clashes in purpose and style. Nonetheless, regarding the current situation, such an argument remains a kind of hopeful thought. Ultimately, reality is the best scriptwriter on the documentary history.
To end, we quote Sontag’s comment on Artaud to assess the independent documentary cinema, it “was not only achieved works of art but a singular presence, a poetics, an aesthetics of thought, a theology of culture, and a phenomenology of suffering.”29
1 ‘Un país sin cine documental es como una familia sin álbum de fotografías’, retrieved from
https://www.patricioguzman.com/es/
2 Retrieved from http://www.sapprft.gov.cn/sapprft/govpublic/6595/279653.shtml
3 Retrieved from http://news.xinhuanet.com/zgjx/2013-10/21/c_132815179.htm
4 Wang, Xiaolu (2010). An Observation on China’s Independent Documentary Films of Two Decades (ershi nian
zhongguo duli jilu pian de guancha). Film Art, 6, 72-78.
5 Wu, Wenguang (2001). Camera as My Own Eyes (jingtou xiang ziji de yanjing yiyang). Shanghai: Shanghai
Wenyi Press.
6 Cui, WeiPing. The Growing Space of the Independent Documentary Films of the Mainland China (zhongguo
dalu duli zhizuo jilu pian de shengzhang kongjian). Wang Bing, Fan Jian, Zhang Zanbo (张赞波), Du Haibin, Cong Feng (丛峰), Ma Li
7 Cui, WeiPing. The Growing Space of the Independent Documentary Films of the Mainland China (zhongguo dalu duli zhizuo jilu pian de shengzhang kongjian).
8 Li, Xiaofeng (2016). A Research Report on the Creative Ecology of the Contemporary Chinese Documentary Film: Evidence from the Contemporary Chinese Documentary and Filmmakers (dangdai zhongguo jilu pian de chuangzuo shengtai baogao: guanyu dangdai zhongguo jilu pian yu jilu pian ren de diaocha baogao). Journalism
9 Welzer, Harald (2001). Social Memory: History, Memory, Inherit (p. 119). Ji Bin, Wang Lijun, and Bai Xikun (trans.). Beijing: Beijing University Press.
10 Zhang, Huiyu (2012). The Visual ‘Nostalgia’ on ‘A Bite’ (‘shejian’ shang de shijue ‘xiangchou’). China Book Review, 9, 19-27.
11 According to baike.baidu.com, the objective of this documentary series is ‘to respond to the time of social transformation, when it is hard to proceed on constructing the harmonious doctor-patient relationship, and to unfold a true humane world by means of transposition into a different perspective and friendly expressions’.
12 The Locarno Film Festival’s official interview with Wang Bing, after his winning of award in August, 2017.
14 Including the Study Report of the Development of Chinese Documentary in 2015 that is released by the Beijing Normal University, and the Annual Report on the Development of Chinese Documentary that is issued by the Communication University of China.
19 Wang, Xiaolu (2010). An Observation on China’s Independent Documentary Films of Two Decades (ershi nian zhongguo duli jilu pian de guancha). Film Art, 6, 72-78.
20 Cui, Weiping. Beijing Independent Film Festival that was Closed for Three Times (bimu sanci de Beijing duli yingzhan). Retrieved from http://www.chinainperspective.com/ArtShow.aspx?AID=17525
21 Cao, Kai. The Iron Fist Still Highly Lifts: The Whitepaper on the (Annual) China Independent Film Festival. First Draft (tiequan gaoqing: zhongguo duli yingxiang (niandu) zhan baipi shu chugao).
24 Cui, WeiPing. The Growing Space of the Independent Documentary Films of the Mainland China (zhongguo dalu duli zhizuo jilu pian de shengzhang kongjian).
27 Quote in the director’s interpretation essay of the filmmaker Ji Dan on her film Ba Ya for the author.
28 Welzer, Harald (ed.) (2001). Social Memory: History, Memory, Inherit (p. 120). Ji Bin, Wang Lijun, and Bai
Xikun (trans.). Beijing: Beijing University Press.
29 Sontag, Susan (2006). Under the Sign of Saturn (zai tuxing de biaozhi xia) (p. 16). Yao Junwei (trans.).
Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House. Original work published 1980.
Author: Hongyun Sun PhD. — Email: [email protected]
Hongyun Sun, associate professor, Department of Film Studies, Beijing Film Academy. Also Author Two China?, Ivens’ Yukong & Antonioni’ s China on Studies in Documentary Film(Volume 3, Number 1, September 2009, pp. 45-59), Joris Ivens Film in China for Joris Ivens Magazine(2008), and over 40 academic articles about documentary film in Chinese leading journals. Monograph is Truth Game: New Documentary in the West. Editor Joris Ivens and Documentary Film and translated two books from English to Chinese: Documentary Storytelling: Making Stronger and More Dramatic Nonfiction Films by Sheila Curran Bernard, and Living Dangerously: A Biography of Joris Ivens byHans Schoots.
Department of Film Studies, Beijing Film Academy
4 Xitucheng Road, Haidian, 100088, Beijing, China
