Deep Politics Forum

Pamela McElwain-Brown Wrote:Jim Fetzer said:
Are you capable of changing your mind like Pam, Jack? I anticipated that the going might get rough, and
I haven't planned to lose any old friends over this. But I'm not going to abandon a witness in whom I believe!

My life has changed considerably from the time I first became acquainted with Judyth. By that time I had given two presentations at NID and worked on a few TV shows from Gary Mack's giving producers my name. The first thing I did was try to help get the tapes of Anna Lewis' interview plus other tapes from the 2000 NOLA trip back from Debra Conway. My doing that immediately alienated me from her. Not long after, Gary Mack emailed me and told me to back away from being supportive of Judyth. I refused to be manipulated and told him so. That ended my interactions with him.

I could not have known what the fallout would be of my doing only that which I believed was the right thing to do; namely, to try to level the slanted field of libel that surrounded any statements Judyth made. Looking back over the last seven years, I would not do anything differently. Not only that, but each new assault against Judyth causes me to wonder even more just how powerful her statements are considered to be by the Ongoing Coverup. I am convinced that the alternative to allowing Judyth to have a voice is to lead everyone back into the unsullied purity of the WCR where we only need to deal with 'LHO acting alone'.

Few persons have had a "greater voice" on JFK forums in the past
10 years than JVB. Nobody has tried "to silence her". Indeed she spews
out words faster than most in repetitive voluminous postings. When
people question her and try to get "proofs", she becomes defensive
and abusive, and says she was a witness and does not need proof.

She has had 10 years to tell her story, and nobody has stopped her
yet.

Jack

JIM AND JUDYTH RESPOND TO JACK WHITE

NOTE: Just for the record, Jack White has long been and will remain one of my favorite
personalities in JFK research. Until our divergence over Judyth, he and I have been on
the same side of virtually every battle fought about what happened to JFK. I am sorry
it has come to this, but my commitment to truth overrides loyalty to my friends when I
am convinced that they have lost their way. I respect Jack's right to his opinion about
Judyth and all other issues JFK. What I do not respect is his closed-mindedness and his
obvious unwillingness to consider the evidence. He has not read the books, listened to
the interviews, or even read the posts that Judyth and I have been making. And I find
it quite bizarre that he would think my ongoing pursuit of truth involving Judyth should
undermine (what he takes to be) my accomplishments in the past. Life is too complex
for such simplistic thinking to be reflective of the realities of the situation. Each of us
is free to agree with some of another student's research and reject other parts of it, as
I shall illustrate in relation to the work of another old friend, whose relationship has now
ruptured, David Lifton. For now, however, let me conclude by offering Judyth's replies.

JUDYTH ANSWERS JACK'S QUESTIONS:

Dear Jack:

You have asked some good questions about the book Livingstone published. I wrote the book. It was edited
by Livingstone, who can be difficult to work with.

The orginal 'real' book (written for an honest publisher) -- Deadly Alliance -- had been co-authored by
Dr. Howard Platzman using many emails I wrote to him. We wnet back and forth, but there were errors and
too much was missing. It's not easy to write book by emails! I was living in Holland, and while going over
that book, it was stolen, along with my computer and almost everything I owned. The thieves later would
have an encounter with Wim Dankbaar, who actually shoved his fist through a window on their door so we
could open it and get some of my things from them. Dankbaar, despite his cut and bleeding fist, was not
afraid of them, unlike the neighbors who watched, like cowed dogs.

Harrison Livingstone, having seen portions my rewritten version, which was underway since Deadly Alliance
had been stolen, heard how the thieves were blackmailing me, threatening to publish the stolen book -- with
revisions as they pleased -- on the Internet, unless I handed over my screenplay to them. They said they had
some connections, through the Mafia, with Hollywood. And no, I am not making this up.

Livingstone quickly pulled together some people to pay for the book to be published under his own logo. He
had done investigating of my story, since he and Shackelford were friends, and he had already mentioned my
testimony in one of his recent books. Odd that on McAdams' newsgroup, John Leyden wrote that I self-published
the book Livingstone published -- saying that I got it printed at Kinko's! Leyden and his friends post such outright
misinfo about me from time to time, and lurkers might believe it. They don't care.

I am going into this detail, Jack, because I respect you and want you to have a full account.

The book was imporant. Livingstone did not want the stolen version to be quoted by anyone, though to this day,
McAdams & Co. do quote from the stolen Deadly Allaince. Shame on them!

Regarding Eaglesham:

I believed Eaglesham was doing a very good job until I became friends with Dangerous Dan Marvin. I had been
sent a photo of the Pitzer murder which has never been published. I had no idea what it was about, though.
This was in 2000.

I get sent the most amazing things. This photo was stolen along with my computer and my book by the Dutch
thieves, in 2004, but I told Allan Eaglesham about the photo, which was different from what he showed me.

Though Dan Marvin is elderly, and might have had a few details wrong, there is no doubt whatsoever that evidence
concerning Pitzer's autopsy has been misinterpreted. There is more reason to believe that he might have been
murdered than can be ascertained from Eaglesham's writings, although I respect Eaglesham's research abilities
and need to see more.

I have some small issues with his assessment of the photos, and because of my medical experience, I came to the
conclusion that the possibility of foul play existed, largely due to blood patterns and a misinterpretation of autopsy
details, which I believe need reexamination.

Having known Dan a long time, and seeing that he was exonerated when Trine Day and Dan were sued by former
Green Berets who acually lied on the stand -- a final review of tape recordings they made years earlier proved they
were lying -- set in my mind prety strongly that Dan Marvin told the truth. As a committed Christian, I believe he is
incapable of perpetrating a falsehood. Anyuone who knows Dan well must ake what he says seriously, even if time
may have dimmed some details in his memory.

I consider Eaglesham a good researcher, but I also see some misinerpreed aspects regarding the Pitzer autopsy
that jive with the photo I was sent. If I had known what I know now, I would have sent that photo far and wide.
But I didn't. I had phone calls from Sirhan Sirhan's lawyer, Mr. Teeter, just before he died under what I consider
suspicious circumstances.

I have no friendship or animosity regarding Allan Eaglesham.

I think he's a good researcher. His work on the Jimmy Files casing is excellent. I found a problem with the form
used to 'prove' when the casing was manufactured, though. It needs closer iexamination for several reasons. Other
such forms do not clesely resemble it in several key areas. I think it was supposedly found in the trash, and some
other odd logistics problems from Remington suggests some tampering going on that I find of concern. All in all,
until re-examined, including a good look at the paper with a high resolution scan -- which wasn't done, I believe --
until we have more information, Eaglesham's findings seem correct and apropos.

I believe Files heard enough about the assassination that he has important information. He has indisputable mafia
ties with some of the very bad boys. Furthermore, I saw some untrue 'facts' posted about Files from a military man,
claiming a certain task force, whatever, did not exist, when in fact I knew it did because of my own family's military
history. That gave me pause.. The facts offered by the military guy were patently false.

I have argued with Wim Dankbaar about Files, with vigor.

One fact that Wim told me, is that no description of the bullet casing having been indented had ever been in the
newspapers or anywhere else when Files was asked about it. That man described a bullet casing accurately,
according to what I have been told.

But we have the problem of the 'hyphen' on the evidence....Fikles currently and for the rest of his life, it seems,
languishes inside Joliet prison, a nototorious place where he had no access to such newspaper articles anyway.
They do not even allow him to be brought fresh fruit, and he has cancer which is going untreated, last I heard.

I do consider Allan Eaglesham a good investigator and wish him well.

Because I have defended Dan Marvin, when his integrity was being atacked, Allan may not wish the same good
wishes on me, but I found him a quite intelligent man.

Having said that, I do not know why he is so itnerested in Dan Marvin and Jimmy Files. How did he get involved
in the Pitzer case? The Jimmy Files matter? I have tried to figure out why he has expended so much energy on
them: others here may know that answer. He has some good scientific training behind him...it's obvious. Maybe
others can tell me more about him?

JVB

[quote name='Jack White' post='189445' date='Apr 11 2010, 02:50 PM']This is very regrettable.

That frauds like Files, Holt and Baker can splinter JFK researchers is likely part of
a deliberate misinformation campaign...carefully managed by the propaganda
masters. It is conceived to linger on and on, endlessly. Ten years now and her
"book is still not published."

I suggest that a route to finding the truth about JVB is to interview the man who
was married to her, who tells an entirely different story about what happened in
1963.

Jim has chosen to endanger all of his previous fine research and friendships
in order to embrace this one strange woman. Like some others before him, he
has dug himself a very deep hole that it will be hard to climb out of, when the
truth emerges...if ever.

Sadly,

Jack[/quote]

JIM REPLIES TO JOHN SIMKIN ABOUT JUDYTH AND HIS (SIMKIN'S) INVOLVEMENT IN THIS THREAD

John,

What I have previously observed (see below) is that your report about the specific date that Judyth joined the forum was
(at least, implicitly) inconsistent with your remark that she was already "a member of the forum", which occurred at the
end of your first post about the new "JFK assassination" (post #77 on page 6). Let me say that I have long admired you
for creating this forum and greatly appreciated your invitation that I should join, which you extended many years ago.



The only respect in which I fault your performance here is that, because of your standing as the founder of the forum,
when you express opinions such as you have done here--"Eventually, I came to the conclusion that she was a fantasist"--
has the effect of warping the discussion. That that should be your personal opinion is fine, but that you, as the founder,
should express it in relation to a thread dedicated to determining whether or not that is true is completely inappropriate.

I strongly suspect that, since you and Judyth had obviously been in contact BEFORE this branch of the forum was created,
and no doubt she had ENCOURAGED YOU TO CREATE SUCH A BRANCH, she probably inferred (apparently mistakenly)
that you had created this new branch BECAUSE SHE HAD ENCOURAGE YOU. This is an example of the fallacy involved
in inferring that because something X took place BEFORE something else Y, that X CAUSED Y (post hoc ergo propter hoc).

There are two general principles that govern attempts to understand discourse under standard conditions, which are (1)
the principle of charity and (2) the principle of humanity. According to the first, we should as much as possible, attempt
to impose interpretations upon the communications of others that make them true or, at least, plausible given their point
of view; and according to the second, as much as possible, we should presume that their motives are the same as our own.

In the case of the exchanges on this forum, of course, we are not dealing with "standard conditions" of communication,
since there is an extremist group (whose names are obvious to anyone who actually reads through this thread), which
is dedicated to discrediting what Judyth has to say, regardless of any evidence or arguments that she or I might advance
on her behalf. What I had not expected, however, was that you would intervene several times during the course of this
debate to endorse one side. I had not expected that coming from you and regard it, alas, as an abuse of your position.

Nevertheless, it creates an occasion to repost information that appeared on that earlier response from me to you, where
Wim Dankbaar and Howard Platzman explain some of the reasons that they have come to believe in Judyth. They are not
alone, of course, since Edward Haslam and Jim Marrs, who wrote the introduction to Ed's book, are also on board, not to
mention Nigel Turner, "The Love Affair", and "60 Minutes", which wanted to run her story but was overruled, no doubt, on
political grounds. My interactions with Judyth, which have become quite substantial, have only reinforced my belief in her.

Jim

P.S. I have discussed this matter many times before, including posts #143, #145, and #154. And I replied to you previously
in post #160 on page 11 as well as post #77 on page. If you were actually reading these posts, then I don't think you would
be so concerned about having made a mistake that I have corrected. But if you are not reading these posts carefully enough
to appreciate why Judyth's observation was appropriate, then you do not know enough to continue to make posts here. The
kinds of evidence adduced by Ed Haslam, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, for example, and during my interview on "The Real Deal", I
submit, are indispensable to those who want to sort out the truth about Judyth's story, which does not seem to include you:

From my post #16O on page 11:

John,

Thanks for this post, which is valuable for several different reasons. Since you refer to Judyth as "already a member of this forum" on 13 March 2004, which is the date on which you established the JFK assassination segment of The Education Forum, may I infer that you were already in contact with Judyth and considered her to be "a member of the forum", even though she would not formally join the forum until 27 March 2004?



And may I also infer that, in the course of your contacts with her prior to 13 March 2004, she, like others, may have suggested that having such a segment of the forum would be a good idea? In the post following your dedication of the JFK assassination section at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....wtopic=511, for example, Raymond Blair states, "I proposed this activity on another thread in this forum", where he, like Judyth, is inclined to take some credit for its establishment.

If I am correct in my inferences about this, then I think we have a resolution to the controversy about the origins of the JFK assassination forum, which you founded on 13 March 2004 after having received several suggestions for doing so from Raymond Blair, Judyth Baker, and others. Which makes perfectly good sense, since you were in sufficient contact with her to consider her to already be "a member of the forum", even though she would not formally join the forum until 27 March 2004.

Your link to a previous thread at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....topic=1435 yields a bonanza of information, including extremely interesting posts from Wim Dankbaar, Pamela McElwain-Brown, Martin Shackelford, Bob Vernon, John Ritchson, Judyth and you. Your post of 28 August 2004, for example, explains that you have had extensive contact with Judyth and that you are inclined to believe her story, not least of all because it fits your own analysis of historical events.

During the course of the thread, you provide yet another link at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....topic=1758 which also appears to be loaded with interesting material. So I want to thank you for making this post. I believe my reconstruction of those events has the potential to resolve some conflicts about their interpretation, which promises to reconcile your remark about Judyth being "a member of the forum" already even though she did not formally join until the 27th.

Jim

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Apr 11 2010, 01:59 AM)
1) John Simkin showing prejudice against me at once by implying I lied--corrected by Dr. Fetzer;

I assume this refers to your claim that I started the JFK Forum because JVB suggested it. I have already said this is untrue. Surely, I am the best person to know why I created this Forum.

I did take part in a long email exchange with JVB where she answered my questions. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that she was a fantasist.

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='185326' date='Mar 1 2010, 09:17 PM']Actually, John, you observed that she was already a member of the forum in a post of your own dated Mar 13 2004 as follows. Given the interest in her (real or imagined) experiences, I am also posting some of the earliest exchanges about her and her replies. They can serve as a kind of "base line" for measuring the consistency of her reports across time, where none of us would be expected to be completely consistent in every respect. There is a lot of very interesting information here and Judyth has been extremely forthcoming.

John Simkin
Rating: 5
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts

post Mar 13 2004, 09:59 AM
Post #1


Super Member
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 14119
Joined: 16-December 03
From: Worthing, Sussex
Member No.: 7

In November, 2003 Judyth Baker appeared in the television programme made by Nigel Turner, The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Love Affair. In the film Judyth tells of her (at first, unwitting) involvement in an anti-Castro conspiracy. A young woman who had received specialized training in cancer research, she was invited to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner to aid Dr. Mary Sherman in a research project that was being developed to kill Fidel Castro.

In 1963, Judyth met Lee Harvey Oswald and became involved on the clandestine side of the research project. Both had unhappy marriages and were attracted to each other. She and Oswald began working together: they were both hired May 10, 1963, at Reily's Coffee Company, which provided cover jobs for them. Several labs were involved, including a tumor and tissue culture processing mini-lab, at an apartment owned by anti-Castroite Dave Ferrie. Lee Oswald was selected to courier the biological materials to Mexico City, but the project was called off due to Hurricane Flora. Oswald was ordered to Dallas.

Oswald kept in touch with Judyth: they planned to escape to Mexico after his major assignment - his voluntary infiltration of an assassination ring against John F. Kennedy. Oswald believed a highly conservative Texas-sponsored cartel was working with the Mafia and rogue elements of the CIA and the FBI in the plot against Kennedy. He suspected that David Atlee Phillips was his handler. After Kennedy was assassinated, Dave Ferrie called Judyth and told her she was being watched: if she talked, she would die.

Researchers are divided on Baker's story: a number of researchers have seen most or all her original evidence files and defend her (such as Jim Marrs, Martin Shackelford, Wim Dankbaar, Howard Platzman) while other researchers attack her story (Jack White, David Lifton, John MacAdams, Dave Reitzes). Baker points out that almost all the researchers who have attacked her story have never met her or viewed her original evidence files.

You can read the John MacAdams account below:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm

I believe his account is full of inaccuracies. As Judyth Baker is a member of the forum I hope she will point this out for us.

+Quote Post
John Simkin
Rating: 5
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts

post Mar 29 2004, 04:29 PM
Post #3

Super Member
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 14119
Joined: 16-December 03
From: Worthing, Sussex
Member No.: 7

I still have a few problems with the story. As do most people who have studied the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is not only John Macadams who have found the story difficult to believe. This is not to say the story is not true. However, researchers will need to see documentary evidence that Judyth Baker was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in a conspiracy in New Orleans to develop a new biological weapon.

(1) This story involves several characters who had the potential to reveal the truth of why Oswald was in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Therefore it was understandably why people who knew about the conspiracy (Lee Harvey Oswald, Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie and Guy Banister etc.) were murdered or died in mysterious circumstances soon afterwards. I would have thought that if this was the case than Judyth Baker would have been killed during this period.

(2) I would have found the story more believable if characters were named who were still alive to answer questions about the case. Characters like David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, Mary Sherman, David Atlee Phillips, Carlos Marcello, etc. have been mentioned several times before. One of the advantages of naming these characters is that they are dead and cannot contradict the theory.

I would definitely be interested in hearing from the “two living witnesses” who could back-up this story. You say “these recorded interviews could not be used in the documentary because these witnesses have been threatened thereafter”. Who is still alive to keep these witnesses from talking. For example, Billie Sol Estes has recently provided information on the case because all those involved in the original conspiracy are now dead.

(3) Researchers have found it difficult to believe that a 19 year old girl, however talented, would have been recruited for such a project. Why was David Ferrie, someone with no medical qualifications, recruited by the CIA for this plot. Mary Sherman was a doctor but she was not a cancer specialist (she was a orthopaedic surgeon).

(4) If this cocktail of a virus designed to knock out Castro’s immune system and cancer cells that would infect him and cause his death, was developed by Dr. Mary Sherman and her team, has it been used since? (Jack Ruby?). Why has this means to kill people remained a secret since 1963?

(5) Why did the CIA have to develop a new method to kill Castro? Surely they had plenty of undetectable poisons that would have been able to kill him?

(6) Some critics have suggested that Judyth read Ed Haslam’s book “Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus” and inserted herself into the story. The book describes the cancer research story and the discovery of simian virus contamination of the Salk vaccine, which is believed to be responsible for a particular cancer variant occurring in some patients today.

Despite these doubts I believe Judyth deserves a hearing. I would like to think that by rational debate we can eventually get near the truth of why Kennedy was killed. I have been dismayed by the attitude of some Kennedy researchers who have attempted to stop her from communicating her story to a large audience. It is hoped that this forum will provide a place where people with a wide variety of different views can debate these important issues.

--------------------
John Simkin
Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....topic=1365
General Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk
JFK Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm
Watergate: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/watergate.htm
Operation Mockingbird: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm
Spartacus Travel Guide: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/travelguide.htm
Go to the top of the pageReport Post


+Quote Post
Guest_Wim Dankbaar_*
post Mar 29 2004, 06:08 PM
Post #4

Guests

When I wrote the above I was relying on the information I obtained from the television programme and on internet websites. Over the last couple of days I have been in email communication with Judyth Baker and I have to confess I have been impressed by her willingness to answer my detailed questions.

I still have a few problems with the story. As do most people who have studied the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is not only John Macadams who have found the story difficult to believe. This is not to say the story is not true. However, researchers will need to see documentary evidence that Judyth Baker was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in a conspiracy in New Orleans to develop a new biological weapon.

(1) This story involves several characters who had the potential to reveal the truth of why Oswald was in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Therefore it was understandably why people who knew about the conspiracy (Lee Harvey Oswald, Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie and Guy Banister etc.) were murdered or died in mysterious circumstances soon afterwards. I would have thought that if this was the case than Judyth Baker would have been killed during this period.

(2) I would have found the story more believable if characters were named who were still alive to answer questions about the case. Characters like David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, Mary Sherman, David Atlee Phillips, Carlos Marcello, etc. have been mentioned several times before. One of the advantages of naming these characters is that they are dead and cannot contradict the theory.

Judyth was never called to testify in any case or hearing (like Ferrie, Giancana, Nicoletti, Roselli etc), nor did she volunteer any information (like Cheramie, Kilgallen, Craig, Pitzer, Ruby, etc)
"How could I contradict the official story? All my witnesses kept dying on me." - Jim Garrison

I would definitely be interested in hearing from the “two living witnesses” who could back-up this story. You say “these recorded interviews could not be used in the documentary because these witnesses have been threatened thereafter”.

You have to ask Judyth about them. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to release their names.

Who is still alive to keep these witnesses from talking.

Heirs and friends of LBJ, George H. W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Arlen Specter and on and on.

For example, Billie Sol Estes has recently provided information on the case because all those involved in the original conspiracy are now dead.

Billy Sol is blowing smoke or just does not have the full picture. Chauncey Holt applied the same reasoning. He was just wrong. This was a compartimentalized operation.

(3) Researchers have found it difficult to believe that a 19 year old girl, however talented, would have been recruited for such a project. Why was David Ferrie, someone with no medical qualifications, recruited by the CIA for this plot. Mary Sherman was a doctor but she was not a cancer specialist (she was a orthopaedic surgeon).

Yeah, well, ther was a time researchers found it difficult to believe the earth is round.

(4) If this cocktail of a virus designed to knock out Castro’s immune system and cancer cells that would infect him and cause his death, was developed by Dr. Mary Sherman and her team, has it been used since? (Jack Ruby?).

Bingo!

Why has this means to kill people remained a secret since 1963?

Because this secret is even more damning than the truth about the Kennedy assassination. How would you feel if you know your polio vaccine had been contamined with a cancer causing virus?

(5) Why did the CIA have to develop a new method to kill Castro? Surely they had plenty of undetectable poisons that would have been able to kill him?


Because this one would furnish plausible denial. Ochsner was just promoting that cigarette smoke causes cancer. Castro smoked cigars like a chimney.


(6) Some critics have suggested that Judyth read Ed Haslam’s book “Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus” and inserted herself into the story. The book describes the cancer research story and the discovery of simian virus contamination of the Salk vaccine, which is believed to be responsible for a particular cancer variant occurring in some patients today.

I know Ed and he knows Judyth. They didn't know each other before Judyth came out with her story. They got to know each other when they were both invited for CBS 60 minutes, which was canceled last minute (of course). Ed believes Judyth. Simple as that. He had been familiar with the name Judyth Vary Baker for 30 years.

Despite these doubts I believe Judyth deserves a hearing. I would like to think that by rational debate we can eventually get near the truth of why Kennedy was killed. I have been dismayed by the attitude of some Kennedy researchers who have attempted to stop her from communicating her story to a large audience. It is hoped that this forum will provide a place where people with a wide variety of different views can debate these important issues.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

This post has been edited by dankbaar: Mar 29 2004, 06:10 PM
Go to the top of the pageReport Post


+Quote Post
Guest_Wim Dankbaar_*
post Mar 30 2004, 09:12 AM
Post #5

Guests

Oh, and one more thing: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet, especially not on McAdams' website. Mary Sherman was not only a surgeon, but also a BONE CANCER SPECIALIST, BONE CANCER SPECIALIST, BONE CANCER SPECIALIST. She was especially brought down from Chicago by Ochsner to head his bone clinic. She was also on the BOARD of his CANCER clinic. Now why is that not in his biography???? And why has the picture of board members including Mary Sherman been removed from the second printing onwards?


Wim
Go to the top of the pageReport Post


+Quote Post
Guest_Wim Dankbaar_*
post Apr 7 2004, 04:50 PM
Post #6

Guests

http://www.spitfirelist.com/f316.html

FTR#316—Update on the Politics of SV40—(Two 30-minute segments) (Sources are noted in parentheses.) (Recorded on 7/29/2001.)

Note: FTR#’s 260-315, 317, FTR#325 and succeeding programs are streaming on Real Audio at http://www.wfmu.org/daveemory. FTR#’s 01-270, 316-324 are available for download only, also on Real Audio, at http://archive.wfmu.org:5555/archive/DX/.)

Note: Users of this website are emphatically encouraged to create a word document out of the program descriptions and do a “search” on individual subjects in order to more completely reference those items.

Note: Users of this website (as well as the two WFMU web addresses noted above) are emphatically encouraged to use the internet to disseminate as much of the audio and printed material as possible. It is all FREE!

Providing valuable supplemental information to previous programs about the cancer-causing monkey virus SV40, this broadcast highlights articles from the mainstream press that reinforce the remarkable research done by Ed Haslam, the author of the vitally important recent book Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus: The Story of an Underground Medical Laboratory. (For more about Ed and his historic research, see, among other programs, FTR#’s 16, 19, 62, 63, 76, 198, 199, 269, 308. In particular, the listener is referred to FTR#19, a detailed, three-hour interview with Ed Haslam that covers the subject material of his book at length and in detail.) A contaminant in the original polio vaccine, the SV40 appears to be the cause of a soft-tissue cancer epidemic.

1. The program begins with discussion of a front-page story in the San Francisco Chronicle that is strongly supportive of information presented in previous programs about SV40. “A growing number of medical researchers fear that a monkey virus that contaminated the polio vaccine given to tens of millions of Americans in the 1950’s and ‘60’s may be causing rare human cancers. For four decades, government officials have insisted that there is no evidence the simian virus called SV40 is harmful to humans. But in recent years, dozens of scientific studies have found the virus in a steadily increasing number of rare brain, bone and lung-related tumors—the same malignant cancer SV40 causes in lab animals.” (“Rogue Virus in the Vaccine” by William Carlsen; San Francisco Chronicle; p. A1.)

2. As reported in previous programs on SV40, there is evidence that the virus (and, consequently, the cancers it causes) are contagious. “Even more troubling, the virus has been detected in tumors removed from people never inoculated with the contaminated vaccine, leading some to worry that those infected by the vaccine might be spreading SV40.” (Idem.)

3. The number of researchers who feel that SV40 is a threat is growing. “The discovery of SV40 in human tumors has generated intense debate within the scientific community, pitting a handful of government health officials, who believe that the virus is harmless, against researchers from Boston to China who now suspect SV40 may be a human carcinogen. At stake are millions of research dollars and potential medical treatments for those afflicted with the cancers SV40 may be causing.” (Ibid.; pp. A1-A16.)

4. Four years after the development of the Salk vaccine, Bernice Eddy of the National Institutes of Health discovered the contamination of the vaccine with SV40. “Four years later, Bernice Eddy, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health, noticed something strange while looking through her microscope. Monkey kidney cells—the same kind used to make the vaccine—were dying without apparent cause. So she tried an experiment. She prepared kidney extracts from eight to 10 rhesus monkeys and injected tiny amounts under the skin of 23 new born hamsters. Within nine months, ‘large, malignant, subcutaneous tumors’ appeared on 20 of the animals.” (Ibid.; p. A16.)

5. Eddy’s results were dismissed by NIH researchers. “On July 6, 1960, concerned that a monkey virus might be contaminating the polio vaccine, Eddy took her findings to Dr. Joseph Smadel, chief of the NIH’s biologics division. Smadel dismissed the tumors as harmless ‘lumps.’ The same year, however, at a Merck laboratory in Pennsylvania, Dr. Maurice Hilleman and Dr. Ben Sweet isolated the virus. They called it simian virus 40, or SV40, because it was the 40th virus found in rhesus kidney tissue.” (Idem.)

6. Other experts, however, shared Eddy’s concern. “But U.S. Public Health Service officials were worried. Tests had found SV40 in both the Sabin and Salk vaccines—it was later estimated that as much as a third of the Salk vaccine was tainted—and that SV40 was causing cancer in lab animals. In early 1961, they quietly met with the agency’s top vaccine advisers. The agency found no evidence that the virus had been harmful to humans, but in March, the officials ordered manufacturers to eliminate SV40 from all future vaccine. New procedures were adopted to neutralize the tainted polio virus seed stock and SV40-free African green monkeys were used to produce the bulk vaccine instead of rhesus monkeys.” (Idem.)

7. Although the vaccine-making procedures had been altered, the public was kept in the dark. “But officials did not recall contaminated Salk vaccine—more than a year’s supply—still in the hands of the nation’s doctors. And they did not notify the public of the contamination and SV40’s carcinogenic effect on newborn hamsters. [Maurice] Hilleman would later explain that government officials were worried that any potentially negative information could ignite a panic and jeopardize the vaccination campaign. The first public disclosure that the Salk vaccine was contaminated came in the New York Times on July 26, 1961. A story on Page 33 reported that Merck and other manufacturers had halted production until they could get a ‘monkey virus’ out of the vaccine. When asked to comment, the U.S. Public Health Service stressed there was no evidence the virus was dangerous.” (Idem.)

8. As discussed in FTR#’s 198, 199, Michele Carbone was able to confirm the contamination of the vaccine. In addition, Carbone discovered that the vaccine contained a second form of SV40 that may have continued to contaminate vaccines! “For years, researchers had believed that all SV40-contaminated Salk vaccine made between 1955 and 1963 had been used or discarded. Then in 1999, Carbone was contacted by a former public health director in Oak Park, Ill., who said he had seven sealed vials of vaccine dated October 1955 in a refrigerator in his basement. Carbone, who had left the NIH and joined the faculty at Loyola University Medical Center, ran tests on the vaccine and made a startling discovery: Not only was the vaccine contaminated, it contained a second form of the virus—an ‘archetypal’ SV40 strain.” (Ibid.; p. A17.)

9. The continued contamination of the vaccine-making process is highlighted in the passage that follows. “Although manufacturers switched from rhesus monkeys to SV40-free green African monkeys to grow the bulk vaccine in 1961, they have continued to use potentially contaminated polio seed strains originally grown on the rhesus monkey tissue to start the bulk vaccine process. [Italics are Mr. Emory’s] Manufacturers check the purity of their vaccine with a series of 14-day tests to detect whether any SV40 slipped through. But when Carbone replicated the tests, he found that the second, slower-growing ‘archetypal’ strain took 19 days to emerge. It was possible, Carbone noted in a published report, that this second strain of SV40 had been evading manufacturers’ screening procedures for years—and infecting vaccine recipients after 1962.” (Idem.)

10. The National Cancer Institute continues to drag its feet with regard to SV40 and its relationship to human cancer. Historically, that institution is deeply tainted. More about that later in this program description. “But the NCI recently acknowledged that there is evidence to suggest that SV40 ‘may be associated with human cancer.’ The NCI statement, released last month, also said that SV40’s interaction with ‘tumor suppressor proteins’ indicates ‘possible mechanisms that could contribute to the development of cancer.’ Top NCI officials declined to be interviewed on the record for this report. Fraumeni also declined several requests for an in interview. Dr. James Goedert, the chief of the NCI’s Viral Epidemiology Branch who supervised Strickler’s work, said that if SV40 is in human tumors, it must be at extremely low levels. To critics who claim the government has down played SV40’s potential health risks, Goedert responded: ‘Absolutely not.’ He acknowledged that research is needed to resolve the question of whether SV40 is prevalent in the human population and, if so, how it might be spreading. But Goedert said he has no plans for such studies. ‘It’s not our highest priority,’ he said.” (Idem.)

11. A subsequent article by William Carlsen supplements the above information concerning the SV40 contamination of more recent vaccines. “A monkey virus linked to human cancers may have contaminated the oral polio vaccine for years after the U.S. government ordered manufacturers to remove it, according to drug company documents obtained by The Chronicle. The Chronicle reported last week that the simian virus SV40 had contaminated early polio vaccine given to millions of Americans. When health officials discovered in 1961 that SV40 caused malignant tumors in lab animals, they ordered the virus eliminated from all future vaccine.” (“New Documents Show the Monkey Virus is Present in More Recent Polio Vaccine” by William Carlsen; San Francisco Chronicle; 7/22/2001; p. A6.)

12. More details about the subsequent contamination indicate the possibility of liability. (As this description is being written, the Homeland Security Act has been passed containing a clause eliminating the civic liability of vaccine makers for the product that they manufacture.) “But internal memos from Lederle Laboratories, the chief producer of polio vaccine in the United States, indicate SV40 may not have been completely removed. According to one memo, SV40 was found in three of 15 lots of the oral vaccine seven months after the federal directive was issued in March 1961. Lederle released the contaminated vaccine to the public anyway, the memo shows. The documents also suggest that the company failed to test the monkey-kidney seed strains used to make the bulk polio vaccine for contamination, despite a written warning from Dr. Albert Sabin, who developed the oral vaccine.” (Idem.)

13. Next, the broadcast sets forth the work of one of Bernice Eddy’s heroic (and relatively unrecognized) co-workers, Sarah Stewart. After relating the disastrous discovery of the SV40 contamination of the vaccine, the text highlights Ms. Stewart’s work. “In the aftermath of the debacle, Bernice Eddy was taken off of polio research and transferred to the influenza section by the thankless NIH management. She shared her frustrations with a small group of women scientists who ate brown-bag lunches on the steps of one of the laboratories. There, Eddy met a tenacious woman scientist named Sarah Stewart, who was waging her own battle against the official paradigms of bureaucratic medicine. Bernice Eddy and Sarah Stewart became close friends.” (Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus: The Story of an Underground Medical Laboratory; Copyright 1995 [SC]; Wordsworth Press; p. 97. Again, listeners are encouraged to download the six-part, three interview with Ed Haslam in order to obtain a more complete overview of the discussion. http://archive.wfmu.org:5555/archive/DX/.)

14. Although her contributions remain unrecognized, Sarah Stewart’s work led to the application of recombinant DNA, in addition to confirming the role of viruses in the development of cancer. “Sarah Stewart’s name remains virtually unknown today despite her huge contribution to modern medicine. Not only did she prove that some cancers were caused by viruses, but subsequent research on the virus she discovered led o the discovery of DNA recombination, which is the most powerful tool in medical research today.” (Idem.)

15. Ms. Stewart’s work on cancer-causing viruses supplemented the work of Bernice Eddy and influenced and anticipated the efforts of their collaborator, Dr. Mary Sherman. “From the beginning, Sarah Stewart promoted the idea that cancer was caused by viruses. Due to this, she was not well accepted by the NIH or NCI staffs who described her as ‘an eccentric lady’ determined to prove her theory was right. ‘No one believed her . . .’ Finally, she was given access to an NCI laboratory in Bethesda where she could try to prove her theories. In 1953, she almost succeeded, but her work was not accepted by the ruling crowd at NIH. They found her methods sloppy and objected to the fact that she did not culture her viruses. So in 1956, her lunch partner Bernice Eddy showed Sarah Stewart how to grow her viruses in a culture of mouse cells. She now had all the ingredients she needed and began a series of experiments which are called ‘classic’ by modern day NIH researchers.” (Ibid.; p. 98.)

16. Stewart’s work was rejected by many of her colleagues. Notable among those colleagues was her supervisor Alan Rabson—a name to remember in the context of discussion to follow. “As her work progressed, she realized she stood on the edge of an extremely important discovery and became very protective of her techniques. In staff presentations, she would bewilder NIH pathologists by showing them slides of things they had never seen before. Then, when they asked how she produced her results, she would giggle and say ‘It’s a secret.’ To quote her supervisor Alan Rabson: ‘She drove everybody crazy.’” (Idem.)

17. Stewart and Eddy discovered a carcinogenic virus called “polyoma,” which shed a great deal of light on the discovery of SV40. “In 1957, Stewart and Eddy discovered the polyoma virus which produced several types of cancer in a variety of small mammals. Polyoma proved that some cancers were indeed caused by viruses. Her discovery officially threw open the doors of cancer virology. As Rabson phrased it, ‘Suddenly, the whole place just exploded after Sarah found polyoma.’ It was the beginning of a new era of hope. But it raised some dark questions about earlier deeds. Before long Yale’s laboratory discovered that the polyoma virus that had produced the cancer in Stewart’s mice and hamsters turned out to be virtually identical to Simian Virus #40 (SV-40), a monkey virus that caused cancer.’” (Idem.)

18. Highlighting the discussion that is presented in the first part of the program, Mr. Haslam relates Bernice Eddy’s discovery of the contamination of the polio vaccine. He then goes on to describe the reaction of the NIH to her disclosures. “In October 1960, Eddy gave a talk to the Cancer Society in New York and, without warning NIH in advance, announced that she had examined cells from the monkeys kidneys in which the polio virus was grown and had found they were infected with cancer causing viruses! Her inference was clear: There were cancer-causing monkey viruses in the polio vaccine! This was tantamount to forecasting an epidemic of cancer in America! When the word got back to her NIH bosses, they exploded in anger. When the cussing stopped, they crushed Bernice Eddy professionally. Any mention of cancer-causing monkey viruses in the polio vaccine was not welcomed by NIH. They took away her lab, destroyed her animals, put her under a gag order, prevented her from attending professional meetings, and delayed publication of her scientific paper. In the words of Edward Shorter, author of The Health Century, ‘Her treatment became a scandal within the scientific community.’ Later, it became the subject of a congressional inquiry. In the words of Dr. Lawrence Kilham, a fellow NIH researcher who wrote a latter of protest to the Surgeon General’s office, ‘the presence of a cancer virus in the polio virus vaccine is the matter demanding full investigation . . .’” (Ibid.; pp. 98-99.)

19. In that context, one should note the following, referenced from the Congressional Record, U.S. Senate, Consumer Safety Act of 1972. In turn, the quote is from Ruth Kirchstein of the NIH. Along with the aforementioned Alan Rabson, hers is a name to be remembered. “The insiders already knew there was a cancer-causing virus in the polio vaccine, but they had not announced it. . .” (Ibid.; p. 99.)

20. The media cover-up of the SV40 contamination followed the institutional cover-up. “On the heels of the polio fiasco, the medical hierarchy feared the judgment of the masses. Their ability to destroy a painstakingly constructed scientific career overnight had been clearly proven. Another spate of bad news might shatter the public’s confidence in vaccines altogether. Where would the world be then? Where would the public health establishment be then? As SV40 discoverer Maurice Hilleman put it, the government kept the contamination of the polio vaccine secret to ‘avoid public hysteria.’” (Ibid.; pp. 99-100.)

21. In that context, it is worth noting that Sarah Stewart and Bernice Eddy had developed a prototypical vaccine to protect animals against polyoma as early as 1959! “Developing a vaccine against a spectrum of cancer-causing monkey viruses already inoculated into millions of people in the polio vaccine was at best a long shot. But there was some evidence that anti-cancer vaccines were possible. Quoting Time magazine [“The New War on Cancer via Virus Research & Chemotherapy;” 7/27/1959; p. 54.]: ‘Stewart and Eddy have gone a vital step farther . . . and made a vaccine that protects a big majority of normally susceptible animals against the polyoma virus’s effects.’” (Ibid.; p. 104.)

22. After discussing the relationship between Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, Dr. Alton Ochsner (like David Ferrie, a key figure in the investigation into the JFK assassination) and the (almost certain) work that was underway in New Orleans on a cancer vaccine, Mr. Haslam goes on to describe the relationship between Dr. Mary Sherman, the aforementioned Ruth Kirchstein and Alan Rabson. “Mary Sherman also knew Ruth Kirchstein at NIH. Kirchstein, who was thirteen years younger than Sherman, was an instructor at Tulane Medical School in 1954 and 1955. During these years, Mary was an Associate Professor in Tulane’s Department of Orthopedic Surgery and was that department’s specialist in pathology. Both Sherman and Kirchstein had common interests in pathology and cancer and taught in the same medical school. It is reasonable to assume they knew each other well. In 1957, immediately following the polio shake-up, Kirchstein went to the National Institute of Health where she stayed for the rest of her career. At NIH, Kirschstein began working as a pathologist in the Biologics division where Bernice Eddy worked. Her specialties were listed in the medical directories as virology, polio, and oncology. But since Kirschstein was barely out of medical school when Sherman, Stewart and Eddy were already nationally recognized authorities, I do not consider their direct contact to be very strong, but there are two things about Kirschstein that should be kept in mind. First, once at NIH, Kirschstein dated and later married, Alan Rabson, who was Sarah Stewart’s supervisor. Therefore, she was in a position to know things about both Stewart and Eddy’s research that she might not have known otherwise. And secondly, Kirchstein credits much of her professional success to the personal support and professional guidance of Tulane Medical School’s Chief of Surgery, Dr. Alton Ochsner, who is known to have enjoyed using his considerable contacts to help Tulane medical graduates find good professional positions. Did Kirschstein keep Ochsner informed about the research activities at NIH and NCI? It would be hard to criticize her for keeping her mentor informed about the progress of cancer research at the national labs, especially since he was the former president of the American Cancer Society and held many important positions in the world of medicine. Additionally, as an expert in polio who lived in New Orleans in 1955, Kirschstein would also have been keenly aware of the problems that Dr. Ochsner faced after injecting his grandchildren with Salk’s polio vaccine. When Eddy and Hilleman broke the news about the cancer-causing monkey virus in the polio vaccine, it would not have been unreasonable for Kirschstein to notify Ochsner about the danger his granddaughter faced. Noting the coincidence of the time frame, we ask the question: ‘Did the ‘Sensitive Position’ that Dr. Ochsner was cleared for in October 1959 have anything to do with a secret attempt to develop a cancer vaccine to protect the American public from an epidemic of cancer?’” (Ibid.; pp. 105-106.)

23. Mr. Haslam goes on to develop more connections between biological warfare research, the NIH, New Orleans and the milieu of the Kennedy assassination. (Full detail must obtained from FTR#19 and other programs about the JFK assassination. The latter include, among other programs: The Guns of November, Parts I-IV, RFA#’s 11-13, 15, 37—all available from Spitfire—and FTR#’s 47, 54, 108, 120, 188, 190, 191, 244, 246, 288. For more about the Col. Jose A. Rivera connection, see FTR#’s 62, 63, 76.) “There were other connections between NIH and New Orleans. Of particular interest was Jose Rivera, M.D. Ph.D., who sat on the NIH Board of Directors in the 1960’s. We will note that the Dr. Rivera was really Col. Jose A. Rivera, one of the U.S. Army’s top experts in biological warfare, and that in the summer of 1963 he was in New Orleans handing out research grants from NIH (Institute for Neurological Diseases and Blindness) to Tulane Medical School, LSU Medical School, and the Ochsner Clinic. It is not my objective to pin Ferrie’s possession of the treatise on any one person, but I am trying to show that there were numerous connections between NCI and New Orleans, any one of which might explain how Mary Sherman and/or David Ferrie wound up with an internal document from NIH or NCI.” (Ibid.; p. 106.)

24. In the second edition of his book, Mr. Haslam highlights another intriguing detail about the connection between the JFK assassination and the investigation into the SV40/cancer connection. “ ‘The Warren Commission Volumes. The FBI went to the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital on 11/25/63 looking for evidence of either Lee Harvey Oswald or A.J. Hidell. They went back a second time on 11/26.’ The FBI was looking for Oswald at the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital! I could hardly believe my ears. ‘Why?’ ‘According to the Dallas Police, Oswald had a vaccination card issued to him by the U.S. Public Health Service on 6/8/63, when he lived at 4907 Magazine Street in New Orleans. It was issued to Lee Harvey Oswald, signed by Dr. A.J. Hidell. The FBI reports are in Volume 19. I’ll send you the citations.’ Had Lee Harvey Oswald been on the grounds of the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital at the time the linear particle accelerator was there? Take a look at this map. [For obvious reasons, Mr. Emory cannot reproduce the map here. Dr. Ochsner’s house, Oswald’s apartment, Children’s Hospital, the Infectious Disease Laboratory Building and the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital are within a 1-mile radius of one another.]” (Ibid.; p.127.)

25. Subsequently, Dr. Ruth Kirchstein went on to become Acting Director of the National Institutes of Health. “Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Ruth Kirchstein, the Acting Director of the National Institutes of Health.” (“Department of Health and Human Services: Statement by Dr. Ruth L. Kirschstein Acting Director, National Institutes of Health on Fiscal Year 2001 President’s Budget Request for the National Institute of Health;” 2/15/2000; accessed at http://www.nih.gov/about/director/02152000.htm .)

26. Alan (“Al”) Rabson went on to become the Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute. “NIH WORKING GROUP ON PRIORITY SETTING: [Names include] Al Rabson—Deputy Director, National Cancer Institute.” (“Setting Research Priorities at the National Institutes of Health;” September/1997; p. 10; accessed at: http://www.nih.gov/news/ResPriority/priority.htm .)

27. Although it was not in the original broadcast of FTR#316, an article published on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle on 3/9/2002 supplemented the material on the SV40/cancer connection in an important way. Referencing two articles from the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, the article implicates SV40 in the development of non-Hodgkins lymphoma—one of the soft tissue cancers that Mr. Haslam documents as having assumed epidemic proportions. (“Simian Virus in Polio Shots Tied to Cancer: Two Studies Support Widely Disputed Theory” by William Carlsen; San Francisco Chronicle; 3/9/2002; p.A1; accessed at: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?fi...sfgate.com .) It is included below as a separate “rtf” file for the convenience of the listener.

“Scientists have found traces of a monkey virus that contaminated the polio vaccine in the 1950s in a common form of highly malignant human cancer that has mysteriously doubled in incidence over the past 30 years. Two studies, published yesterday in the British journal Lancet, found a link between the virus, called SV40, and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, a disorder ranked fourth or fifth among cancer deaths in the United States among women and men, respectively. Results suggest that the virus may play a much wider role in cancer than previously suspected.” (“Simian Virus in Polio Shots Tied to Cancer: Two Studies Support Widely Disputed Theory” by William Carlsen; San Francisco Chronicle; 3/9/2002; p.A1; accessed at: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?fi...sfgate.com .)

“‘No obvious risk factors have emerged for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the general population, but a viral cause has been postulated,’ said a group of eight researchers at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas led by Dr. Janet Butel. ‘This finding sheds new light on the possible genesis of (this) important group of malignant disorders.’ The scientists added that their findings may also offer hope for new therapies for the malignancies.”
“In laboratory tests, hamsters injected with SV40 developed a variety of malignant tumors, but early government studies indicated that the virus appeared to have no negative effect in humans who had been exposed. That view began to change in the 1990s when DNA detection techniques became much more refined and evidence of the virus started showing up in human tumors.”

“The Salk polio vaccine, administered by injection in the United States and worldwide from 1955 through 1963, was grown on minced kidney tissue from rhesus monkeys. At the time, the manufacturing process was considered safe. But in 1960, it was discovered that large batches of the vaccine were contaminated with the simian virus later named SV40. An estimated 90 million Americans received Salk vaccine injections and as many as 30 million were exposed to the virus.”

“In laboratory tests, hamsters injected with SV40 developed a variety of malignant tumors, but early government studies indicated that the virus appeared to have no negative effect in humans who had been exposed. That view began to change in the 1990s when DNA detection techniques became much more refined and evidence of the virus started showing up in human tumors.”

“The group included rare brain, bone and lung-related cancers called mesotheliomas. Other research has also turned up SV40 in tumors of children and adults born after the contaminated vaccine was taken off the market in 1963, leading to the still-unsolved mystery of how the virus is being transmitted.”

“Yesterday's reports indicate that SV40 may be involved in a much broader group of human cancers, playing a possible role in nearly half of the 55,000 new cases of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma diagnosed annually. The cancer, which can be highly aggressive, has been associated with HIV- positive patients, and it was thought that the suppression of the immune system in these patients may have had a connection with the dramatic increase in lymphomas since 1970.”

“The new studies examined lymphomas from HIV-positive and -negative patients. Results suggested that both groups had either about the same level of SV40 DNA fragments, or that the HIV-negative samples had a greater incidence.”

“The second group of researchers were at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle and the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Remarkably, both groups of researchers using slightly different detection techniques came up with almost identical results: SV40 fragments were found in 42 percent of 154 lymphomas sampled in one study, while the other found 43 percent in 68 cases.”

“No virus was detected by either study in nonmalignant lymphoid samples and other cancers used as controls. A Chronicle investigation reported last year that there is a heated controversy surrounding detection of SV40 and that most U.S. government's studies over the past decade have debunked the theory that SV40 is causing human cancer or is even present in tumors.”

“But The Chronicle found that more than 60 studies from 30 laboratories around the world have reported detections of the virus in human malignancies. ‘I've been in meetings where people say there is nothing to it,’ said Dr. Jay A. Levy, a renowned virologist at the University of California at San Francisco. ‘That attitude is wrong.’”
“Levy said he had carefully reviewed the papers published yesterday and was impressed with the research. ‘You just can't walk away from it,’ he said, noting that the association found was very strong. ‘But there is still quite a difference between association and causation,’ he added, ‘and proving causation is very difficult.’”

“Dr. Adi Gazdar of the University of Texas, who led the second study, said yesterday that the ‘data is very, very solid.’ He said it had to be more than coincidence that the four types of tumors found in hamsters after injection with SV40 -- brain, bone, mesothelioma and lymphomas -- are now exactly the same tumor types in humans found with detectable levels of SV40.”

“‘The chances are 10 million to 1 it is a coincidence,’ he said. Evidence of how the virus works in tumors is growing as research shows that proteins from SV40 have a powerful effect in turning off tumor suppressor genes in humans.”

“Gazdar and the other researchers said that the recent SV40 discoveries also could help lead to effective cancer treatment, by using SV40 as a target for therapies. ‘A vaccine targeting SV40 in mesothelioma is now being developed,’ he said. ‘But it's still only a potential therapy, and we don't know if it will work yet.’”

“He said that U.S. officials have all but ignored the SV40 detections and that government funding and support for research has been nonexistent. One reason given by Gazdar and other scientists is that the government is worried about its role in promoting polio vaccination campaigns in the 1950s. ‘And maybe it's because the first SV40-related cancers that were discovered were such rare ones,’ Gazdar said. ‘But you can't ignore lymphoma; it's too widespread and too important a cancer. Jackie Kennedy and a lot of other well- known people have died from it [Italics are Mr. Emory’s].’”
Go to the top of the pageReport Post


+Quote Post
howpl
Rating: 0
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts

post Apr 8 2004, 03:56 AM
Post #7

New Member
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 8-April 04
Member No.: 625


I have known Judyth Baker for 5 years. (I also "know" dankbar from a usenet newsgroup, though we have never met.) I am writing this note in the hopes that this is a group of educators (as opposed to Prof. McAdams, the immoderate "moderator of that newsgroup) whose "article" on Ms. Baker, is a pile of trash. Pardon the immoderate language, but this nominal academic has been particularly destructive. Anyone who has spent the number of hours it takes to see Judyth's evidence and hear her story knows that she is the genuine article. McAdams never even met her, though her door was wide open and her telephone number widely circulated.

I co-wrote a book with Judyth, and also spent 14 months going back and forth with 60M on their intention, stated quite emphatically on the last go-round, to do a segment favorable to her. As Don Hewitt later said on C-SPAN, "the door was slammed in our face." Now what do you think he meant by that. The forces arrayed against Don Hewitt - the godfather of investigative journalism (on TV at least) were that powerful. Both he and Wallace believe her story, but as the diligent Nigel Turner segment proved, you really do have to hear the WHOLE story and see the evidence in context. It was nice, and I am thankful for the courage he showed, but viewers should not have had to rely on the talking head alone.

Unfortunately, so-called "researchers" in the JFK community, who spent little time interrogating her and viewing her evidence, have -- to protect their own books -- fought hard and fought dirty to sabotage both the book and the 60M show. They tried hard to stop Turner, too. This may surprise you, but the only thing that surprised me was the intensity of it. Who knew there were conspiracy theorists willing to go this far. Case in point: At the annual Lancer conference, held in Dallas, panelists have been informed that they may not discuss Ms. Baker's story. For this and other atrocities, the head of Lancer has disgraced the research community. I am sure that dankbar has joined this forum in the hopes of finding a true academic sanctuary where open discussion is treasured, not banned.

As for me, I am not sure that I can respond in a detailed manner to questions that come up here. It has been a wild, tiring, and discouraging five-year ride. But I do want it on record somewhere that I believe Judyth Baker knew the real Lee Harvey Oswald. I believe it without a single doubt. As she told me at the outset, the truth is complicated, but it is logical. But nobody has time for complicated in today's world. It takes too much work.

How does one reach responsible academics (unlike the History-for-Sale Channel's "Warren Commission" of LBJ experts, whose very existence should be an embarrassment and whose conclusions come preformed)? Is this the place?

Howard
Go to the top of the pageReport Post


+Quote Post
Judyth Baker
Rating: 0
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts

post Apr 24 2004, 04:06 PM
Post #8


Experienced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 85
Joined: 27-March 04
Member No.: 606


I still have a few problems with the story. As do most people who have studied the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is not only John Macadams who have found the story difficult to believe. This is not to say the story is not true. However, researchers will need to see documentary evidence that Judyth Baker was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in a conspiracy in New Orleans to develop a new biological weapon.

(1) This story involves several characters who had the potential to reveal the truth of why Oswald was in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Therefore it was understandable why people who knew about the conspiracy (Lee Harvey Oswald, Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie and Guy Banister etc.) were murdered or died in mysterious circumstances soon afterwards. I would have thought that if this was the case than Judyth Baker would have been killed during this period. (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM)

REPLY

1)I was known in the project as "Judy Vary." But I became "Mrs. Robert A. Baker,III" only days later. At Reily, I was "Mrs. Baker." At Dave's and Mary's, I was "Judy (Vary)." My father's name was D.W. Vary, I was working with D.W. Ferrie. I always believed this also helped people lose track. "Vary" is an uncommon name. "Ferrie"was being talked about. Marina Oswald was asked about a "Mr. Farry" also.

2) I was removed from the scene of action. I moved to Florida before the final stage of the project was resolved. I was no longer in New Orleans after September 2, 1963. Dave Ferrie, an intelligent man, managed to survive until the Garrison investigation. Shortly before he was to be indicted, he died of a brain hemorrhage. Dr. Sherman was viciously murdered the day the Warren Commission came to New Orleans to get testimonies, July 21, 1964. By then, Banister had been dead one month. I did not attend my own sister's wedding in 1964. I did not attend my own grandfather's funeral in 1965. I did not attend my grandparents' funerals, within a year of each other, in 1969. Why? All these names were VARY. When I returned to study at University of Louisiana, I was so concerned that someone might remember the name 'Vary' even after all those years that I called myself 'Judyth Avary Baker' to hide the middle name, 'Vary.'

When I published short stories or poems, they were under fake names, such as James Rising, Marilyn Ryan, etc. Most important, I was afraid to go into the medical field. I obtain a degree at last - TWENTY FIVE YEARS LATER. The 'whiz kid' did not even get a degree. I contented myself with small-town politics, plunged inmto the Mormon community, which is self-contained, and raised five children, plus some foster children from time to time.

(3) Think: if I wanted to get attention and money from this, and I do have evidence of my relationship with Lee - WHY wouldn't I say he was guilty? Then everybody would have lapped it up. I would have been featured on TV, who knows what else. But I have in fact declined interviews. I have, in fact, insisted Lee was innocent, bringing down all sorts of censures on my head. I even lost my teaching job by speaking out. Note that it is VERY difficult to reach me, even now. Only a few people are even aware of where I live. I recently moved again to make it even more difficult to find me. ONLY because I'm writing to you would you have any contact. ONLY because I'm responding, do you have any input. Otherwise, I remain inaccessible. It has always been so.


(2) I would have found the story more believable if characters were named who were still alive to answer questions about the case. Characters like David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, Mary Sherman, David Atlee Phillips, Carlos Marcello, etc. have been mentioned several times before. One of the advantages of naming these characters is that they are dead and cannot contradict the theory. (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM)

REPLY:

There are persons alive who were aware of my story from the beginning. My sister, Lynda, for example, knew about my love affair with Lee in 1964. My children knew from 1981 that Lee and I 'were friends.' We have statements from members of Marcello's family that they remembered me and Lee. Anna Lewis and her husband David (an investigator who had worked for Guy Banister), and Lee and I double dated. This has been twisted about by those who like to rewrite what I have actually reported. Anna spontaneously spoke of me as Lee's mistress, and went into detail before six witnesses. This poor woman has been threatened and harrassed since. I have a Mafia soldier on tape, three times. We knew each other by sight, not as friends, in New Orleans. His name is "Mac" McCullough. I've proven I knew Lee to Gerry Hemming, because I told Gerry some things Lee knew about him that nobody knew. There are others who know. They just don't want to talk. They remain silent.

As for the clandestine part, think how long it has taken to even get the government to admit that the CIA and Mafia were working together. Ask yourself WHY does the government REFUSE to release many records on Lee and his activities - what national security problem would be discovered if they were released? IF he were the Lone Gunman, and there was no conspiracy, why aren't these records available?

There are slips here and there - Sam Giancana's Chicago-based Mafia knew about our project. It's mentioned on page 416. I have a book coming out. It will provide enough evidence to make manifest that I'm telling the truth.

I would definitely be interested in hearing from the “two living witnesses” who could back-up this story. You say “these recorded interviews could not be used in the documentary because these witnesses have been threatened thereafter”. Who is still alive to keep these witnesses from talking. (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM)

You only need to see how The History Channel was beleaguered by LBJ's friends to see how much power these people can exert to make people lose their jobs, have problems with their credit cards, have money disappear from their bank accounts, to receive harrassing and threatening phone calls in the mioddle of the night - all of which happened to me after I started talking. The Ochsner family is alive and well, and do not want it to seem that their revered Alton Ochsner might have been involved in a plot to kill the President. Most important, I KNOW information that has NOT been released. Gerry Hemming, in fact, wrote to his entire INTERPEN group concerning that, although he said I had learned of these things without understanding how important they were. Oh, I indeed DO understand how important the secret records are. The American public will finally get 'records' -thanks to modern technology - that will replace the originals. The original records are probably destroyed. There are still people left alive, such as Gerald Ford, Arlen Specter, Dich Cheny, and others, whose careers/reputations would be heavily damaged by what I KNOW.

For example, Billie Sol Estes has recently provided information on the case because all those involved in the original conspiracy are now dead. (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM)

No, not because they are dead. Because he, himself, might have been blamed for the deaths of these people, in some cases. Besides, he knew he would not be believed because he was a felon, so it was safe to speak out. As for me, I'm not a felon. I founded a humane society, have five outstanding children, do not smoke, drink and have never been arrested. I NEVER got in any trouble anywhere. So they have to assassinate my character, such as bringing up that I bred dogs, trying to make a breed, and somehow, that makes me a bad person because I actually sold the dogs and founded a dog club. The fact that we donated dogs to handicapped children isn't mentioned. My reputation has to be destroyed, because I'm not a felon, or a prostitute, etc. I have read the most incredible batch of lies about my life, that these characters made up about me!

(3) Researchers have found it difficult to believe that a 19 year old girl, however talented, would have been recruited for such a project...

JIM RESPONDS TO DAVID LIFTON ABOUT JUDYTH, 9/11, AND INTEGRITY

This heated exchange with David Lifton, whom I have long admired for his brilliant research on the death
of JFK, was preceded by an earlier email in which I asked him to send me a copy of the cassette of his
recording of his (one and only) conversation with Judyth. Here is what I said to him in that email:

If you want to have a continuing relationship with me after making that
absurd post on the Judyth thread, then you have to send me a copy of the
cassette within the coming week. Send it to my home at 800 Violet Lane,
Oregon, WI 53575. Use FEDEX. If you don't do that, then just forget it.

Very, very pissed!

Jim

The problem, of course, is that Lifton has made many claims in his ongoing efforts to trash Judyth that I
could confirm or disconfirm by listening to the cassette, most obviously, the "Cancun/Kankun" matter,
where it is inconceivable to me how Lifton, not knowing of the previous history of the region, could have
been in the position to discriminate between her having said "KanKun" and his having heard "Cancun",
when they are phonetically indistinguishable! It appears to me that he wants to block any possibility
his claims about this could be subjected to any rational response by denying access to the evidence.

So my first objection to Lifton's conduct here is that he appears to be suppressing evidence in an effort
to make himself invulnerable to refutation. My second objection is that Lifton published only part of my
email to him, which obfuscated the context within which it was taking place. I am correcting his gross
omission by presenting here the paragraph from my prior email to him (above) which was the trigger
for his impassioned denial of granting me access to the tape recording. In both cases, Lifton violates a
basic requirement of research by presenting only some of the available relevant evidence, but not all.

That fallacy is know as "special pleading". Then in this irresponsible response to our exchange, he now
lashes out at me relative to the question of the events of 9/11! That is simply stunning, but also very
revealing his complete lack of scruples in dealing with me about all of this. I have done an enormous
amount of research on 9/11, while Lifton--and Doug Horne, for that matter--appear to have done none.
Not only did I found Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org) but I published the first book from
Scholars, organized its first conference, "The Science and Politics of 9/11", and produced its first DVD.

I have interviewed dozens and dozens of experts on different aspects of 9/11 in the course of my radio
programs, including a year-and-a-half co-hosting "The Dynamic Duo" with Kevin Barrett on the Genesis
Radio Network and now "The Real Deal" on revereradio.net. I have made hundreds of presentations,
lectures, and interviews on this subject, including being flown to Athens, Greece, in late 2006 to appear
on a 3 1/2 hour television program, which was broadcast worldwide by satellite, and to Buenos Aires,
Argentina (twice) for lectures on 9/11 in 2008 and then a symposium at The National Library in 2009.

Lifton, like Horne, appears to be completely oblivious of the massive evidence that undermines what we
have been told by our government about 9/11. One might have thought that, after having done so much
to expose chicanery by the government about JFK, they might both be the least bit skeptic about this "the
pivotal event of the 21st Century" which has been used to restrict civil rights and subvert the Constitution
by launching these wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan in violation of international law, the
UN Charter, and even the US Constitution, justified to the public based upon an alleged "terrorist attack".

Anyone who wants an introduction to research on 9/11 should read any of the books by David Ray Griffin,
my THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY, or watch the DVD, "The Science and Politics of 9/11: What's Controversial,
What's Not", which are featured on the home page of Scholars at http://911scholars.org. While you are
there, visit "Why doubt 9/11?" in the upper-left-hand corner for a distillation of about 20 refutations of
the "official account" and then visit patriotsquestion911.com, which is linked to Scholars at the upper-
right-hand corner of the home page, where they will be able to access photographs, bio sketches, and
statements about 9/11 from an impresssive array of scholars and professionals across the spectrum.

That Lifton would attack me over 9/11 when he knows next-to-nothing about it parallels his involvement
on this thread when he has not been reading the posts! He withholds relevant evidence that could very
well falsify his efforts to trash Judyth and intrudes when he doesn't know what he is talking about, once
again! It has occurred to me that David Lifton believes that the only person smarter than David Lifton is
David Lifton--when he has his next brilliant idea! Which no doubt contributes to his intransigence when
confronted by someone like me who has the gall to question him about the evidence for his allegations.

So Lifton won't share the cassette of his recording. He isn't following the thread. He is posting without
staying abreast of the state of play on the forum. In attacking me over 9/11, he is perpetrating yet one
more fallacy, the appeal to popular sentiments, which argues that, because most people don't believe 9/11
was "an inside job", it follows that 9/11 was not "an inside job"! Anyone who wants massive evidence to
the contrary can also visit my blog at http://jamefetzer.blogspot.com. And while they are there, they can
also study several I have posted about Judyth, which will make them better informed about her than DSL.

Jim

P.S. And just to make one more point. Not only have I asked him to share a copy of his cassette for me
to review but I have invited him (several times now) to explain his position about HARVEY & LEE. That
his is not doing that troubles me profoundly. The issue makes a difference here. So not only is Lifton
suppressing evidence (by not sharing his recording) and practicing assorted fallacies in reasoning, such
as special pleading and the appeal to popular sentiments, where he doesn't know enough about 9/11 to
take a stand, but, in relation to HARVEY & LEE, he is not willing to share in a case where he knows what
he is talking about. This is not the conduct of a courageous scholar of great integrity, but the opposite.

Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 20:33:20 -0500 [04/09/2010 08:33:20 PM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: The Taped Record of My March, 2000 conversation with Judyth

Heretofore I have been "four square" in your corner. I have probably had
a thousand times (a very conservative estimate) more contact with Judyth
than have you. Ed Haslam has interrogated her for around 1,000 hours. I
find it incredible offensive that you continue to refer to her using such
demeaning and degrading language. There is no way in the world that you
could have discerned the sound of "KanKun" from that of Cancun", which is
one telling indication that your entire rejection of Judyth is overblown.
Are you implying that I would put your conversation with her on the net?
That's a pretty crappy thing to suggest. I no longer believe you about
your conversation with her, especially when you are unwilling to share it.

I would not be investing so much time and effort on this woman had I not
become convinced that she is "the real deal". So if you don't want to
spend more time on her, THEN DON'T! But keep your nose out of where it
does not belong, if you don't mind. I have to deal with enough little
twits on the thread to have someone I largely admire come on to add more
logs to the fire. If you haven't been reading the thread, which I take
to be obvious, THEN STAY THE FUCK OFF IT! It is so typical of Judyth's
critics to drop some nasty and then ignore whatever she has to say about
it in response. Do something else, like the goddamned book you claim to
be writing, while I sort out matters with Judyth. How's that for a plan?

Quoting "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>:

>Jim,
>
>One topic at a time, so this will only be about Judyth (and I don't want to
>spend another minute of my valuable time on this subject).
>
>Some time ago, I consulted with my own attorney and others connected with
>the publication of my own work.
>
>Under no circumstances am I providing any copy of the tape of my
>conversation with Judyth to anyone. Even if I were willing to do so (which I
>am not) it would be a small project to find which box in which storage area
>that cassette is located, then get it copied, then arrange for a lawyer to
>draft a valid legal release etc etc. (Further: can you imagine the
>complications at that juncture: placing reliance on a legal release signed
>by someone I believe to be deluded?) But all of this is quite beside the
>point, because I am unwilling to go down that path, so I'm going to be very
>forthright about it: the answer is no, I'm not providing any such tape, and
>here are some additional considerations:
>
>First of all, I resent the notion of your continually repeating the idea
>that I criminally recorded a conversation, etc etc. Writers and journalists
>often record their interviews, and I considered myself to have been in just
>such a "first interview" situation. The construction you place on that is
>highly negative. That statement--repeated more than once by you--and by
>your associate Judyth, who (for all practical purposes) you now "represent"
>on the Internet--is a giveaway to your true attitude and the dynamic at play
>here, and I want no part of it.
>
>Second: That same attitude is also at play when you indiscriminately post
>Judyth's complete lies about me --and this concerns such rubbish as my work
>not being published on account of her book; or false and malicious
>statements about my filmed interview with Oswald's daughter. These are not
>matters I am going to debate, but they offer an accurate barometer of what
>Judyth is all about: malice, and manipulation, with no true regard for truth
>in history.
>
>Third--and perhaps most relevant: The Internet has changed everything since
>I had this conversation in March, 2004. Any email, any piece of audio, any
>film, any image--can be heard and/or seen around the world.
>
>For all the work you have done as an author and JFK researcher, you have now
>become--in effect--Judyth's "manager," or "handler on the Internet." That is
>a truly unfortunate state of affairs.
>
>As you know, I believe Judyth to be a pathological liar. Further, I do not
>believe her to be a valid witness to anything. She needs psychological help,
>but instead has found a new voice (you) to facilitate the dissemination of
>her fictions, and she even has a soon to be published book on Amazon.
>
>I want to be no part of any of this.
>
>I do not want my voice questioning her on the internet--or as the focus of
>any debate, as to whether she pronounced a particular word this way or that,
>and that is exactly what would happen if this tape were to be provided to
>any third party. Of course she said Cancun--I did not make that up--but I am
>unwilling to have the spurious side debate as to whether her pronunciation
>can be construed one way or another (which I understand to be the latest
>"excuse" she has constructed to avoid being impaled on this particular
>issue).
>
>On a more personal level: I have had to adjust to the fact that you--who I
>think should know better, much better--believe in this woman. Indeed, you
>have fallen for her legitimacy hook, line and sinker. But that doesn't mean
>I should be dragged further into any of this. I shall not, and will not.
>
>Finally, I see nothing wrong with my having complimented someone on the fact
>that they actually went to the Kennedy library, and spent the time necessary
>to retrieve a completely obscure letter written back in 1961. Tony Marsh did
>that, and he is to be commended. I found that admirable. For here is the
>actual fan letter Judyth wrote to President Kennedy, and that document is
>valid evidence and, to say the least, illuminating.
>
>While I don't want to spend further time debating these issues, I am not
>going to be muzzled as to expressing my opinions, when appropriate.
>
>DSL
>
>PS: I have not read Halsam's book, but I have read the threads about it on
>the Simkin Forum. At some point, I'll read it, but you should be aware that
>its entirely possible for Judyth to read such an account, and then "insert
>herself" into the story. That's exactly the way she functions. She reads,
>absorbs, her imagination then goes to work, and then she functions as an
>echo chamber in any existing legal or historical record.

[quote name='David Lifton' post='189440' date='Apr 11 2010, 10:48 AM']
Jim Fetzer is continuing his campaign of reaching into the gutter to stir the pot and attempting to sully my name, using
Judyth Baker as his chosen vehicle for disseminating false information about me.

He obviously does not like the fact that, based on my interactions with Judyth, I believe her to be a pathological liar,
a fraud, and a fantasist. But there are other dimensions to all this. Some months back, I made clear to Fetzer that I do not subscribe
to his ideas as a 9/11 Truther--specifically, I do not believe that the US Government was complicit in the destruction of the World Trade Center;
nor do I believe that a missile, and not a plane, hit the Pentagon.

I know that Doug Horne feels the same way--we see completely eye to eye on this subject--and Doug
has spelled this out very clearly in an Epilogue to his five volume work "Inside the ARRB." But Fetzer is like a bull in a china shop.
He seems not to care whom he offends, or how he goes about it.

He seems to think he is in charge, and is free to sling mud at anyone, anytime. Well, I have had enough of
him and his antics.

In the last 24 hours, and in response to my posting a brief statement complimenting Barb Junkkarinen (and
Tony Marsh) on finding a letter (at the JFK Library) that Judyth wrote to President Kennedy--and in general, supporting their
interpretation that this was nothing more than a fan letter, and that Ralph Dungan's response was completely
routine (and should not be invested with the overwrought interpretation(s) that Judyth has placed on it),
Fetzer sent me a very threatening email which reads, in part, as follows:

QUOTE:

I would not be investing so much time and effort on this woman had I not
become convinced that she is "the real deal". So if you don't want to
spend more time on her, THEN DON'T! But keep your nose out of where it
does not belong, if you don't mind. I have to deal with enough little
twits on the thread to have someone I largely admire come on to add more
logs to the fire. If you haven't been reading the thread, which I take
to be obvious, THEN STAY THE FUCK OFF IT!

UNQUOTE

In the immediate aftermath of this threat, Judyth then repeated her lies about me (and again,
this is all via postings made by Fetzer) to the effect that Rachel Oswald was not paid any money
when a snippet of a 1991 filmed interview I did with Rachel was used by the show HARDCOPY, a year later,
when in fact Rachel was paid a total of $ 4,000, and there are canceled checks to prove these transactions.

As I also stated previously, Rachel was furious--and rightfully so (as was I, by the way)--with the poor taste
shown by a particular HARDCOPY producer in his tasteless editing of the show.

Fetzer is now seeking to recycle that whole sorry episode. He is apparently using Judyth to carry on a smear campaign
against me, attempting to recycle what happened 18 years ago, in the year 2010.

As Joe McCarthy was asked,during the hearings: Have you no decency, sir? To which I would add:
Are there no limits to you stinking behavior?

With each passing day, I want less and less to do with Fetzer, his screwball beliefs,
and his highly unethical and out of control tactics.

Do I believe there was a major conspiracy in the JFK case? Yes, of course I do. Does Fetzer subscribe to that, too?
Yes, he apparently does. But so what. At some point, I simply do not care what someone believes about the Warren Report,
but have to focus on their behavior as a human being, and I not only have had enough of Judyth and her behavior, but
Fetzer as well.

DSL
4/11/10; 3:50 AM PDT
Los Angeles, CA[/quote]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK ABOUT HER LETTERS

This response serves as a reply to post #1111 from
Jack as well as this one. I have been snowed under by
the blizzard and want to post Judyth's reply promptly.
I find it fascinating how many who are attacking Judyth
--including Glenn Viklund, Barb Junkkarinen, and (now)
even Jack White--appear entirely willing to depend upon
John McAdams. We are way past the point of (what is
known as) diminishing returns in relation to this thread.

JUDYTH RESPONDS:

How sad. Jack White has been accessing John
McAdams' pages, for only there is my love letter to
Lee described as Jack has described it.

Jack has been fooled by McAdams & Co. into saying
that I "presented a lot of "love letters" written to
Robert as being to LHO (salutations torn off)."

He parrots these lies as if they are facts:
'presented a lot of love letters' is what the
McAdams folks say. This is a sad day, to see
him state such a thing, when I could have
answered his questions fully.

i) I presented ONLY ONE love letter to "60 Minutes"
--the only one I ever wrote to Lee.

ii) There is only ONE letter to Robert Baker in
the record. I saved it to prove the situation in New
Orleans. The other letter was to Lee. I never had
possession of any other of Robert Baker's love
letters. Of course he has them (unless his wife threw
them away).

I am sorry to see Jack taking time to read
material offered by the WC defender,
John McAdams, and his cohorts.

Here is what Jack wrote:

"Has anyone corresponded with Robert Baker
lately? From what I have seen on the internet,
he does not believe his ex's tales. Also noted
that JVB presented a lot of "love letters"
written to Robert as being to LHO (salutations
torn off)."

My reply:

Jack, you went to the Internet and are
now parrotting what you found there. You
could have asked questions instead of
stating 'factoids' from McAdams & Co.

Now you'll get the facts.

1) Typically, Robert Baker does not respond.
However, his wife may respond for him, pretending
to be Robert Baker. Dr. Howard Platzman exposed
her as POSING as Robert Baker in emails.

She married Baker in ther late 1980's and knew
nothing of what transpired in 1963.

However, she said Robert Baker remembered
returning to Florida on July 20, 1963.

He (or, rather, she) said I was lying about saying
any later.

But paycheck stubs, utility payment checks, bank
statements, and more show that we remained
in New Orleans until early SEPTEMBER. Baker
was 'off' on the date by six weeks. He was
out of town so much he has few memories of
New Orleans.

2) Mr. Baker is a genius with an IQ of 186,
measured and known. However, his memory of
details many other people recall is dismal. A
math genius, he was unable to remember his own
mother's maiden name when asked for it on our
marriage license. I attach our marriage license,
showing a blank there.

He could not remember the names of his
elementary school teachers. He forgot what
grade his oldest son was in. He spent more
real time with his parents that summer than he
spent in New Orleans, and the rest of his time
was out in the Gulf of Mexico. We have his dated
letters showing exactly where he was all summer,
and what he was doing. We can account for
every single day where he was--something he
is unable to do. He did admit that I mnight have
had an affair that summer, though he is certain
(and is correct) that was the only time I would have
conducted an affair. However, his wife may come
up with some stories for you, posing as him.

Take your chances.

3) The love letter that is supposed to have its
salutation torn off' -- the ONLY leter I ever submitted,
the ONLY letter I ever showed anybody, written
to Lee, has its salutation intact. What was torn was
part of a quotation on the right side, top.

NOBODY writes a salutation on the upper right-hand
corner. it's always on the left-hand side.



McAdams & Co. wrote: "notice there is no name
for recipient; section torn off."

But let's examine this letter and see if it could
have been written to my much-absent husband
who neglected me the entire summer, who left me
alone in New Orleans one day after we were married,
without tellng me how to reach him.

On the other hand, that summer Lee and I became
involved in dangerous matters. This letter was
written to Lee after he told me he believed he was
going to be killed, and that he was sorry he had
gotten me involved in his life. Read the letter and
see how serious it is about life and death.

ANYONE who reads my book will know that
Robert's impact on me was very different. He was
gone so much that I decided to divorce him, and
only because I was forced back to Florida by
Ochsner did I stay with him. Always fond of him,
Robert had no troubles or trials for me to worry
about.

Before going any further, look at the torn-off
section: the words 'thou" and "bestowed" can
be read. I wrote someting there such as,
"Thou, upon whom I bestowed my love."

There is nothing there to suggest a name torn off.
...'thou' begins on the same line across as "My
dearest love."

Indeed, the letter was given to "60 Minutes" intact.
It was damaged later, when vandals ripped up many
of my papers. They saw the letter intact.
Dr. Howard Plazman saw the letter intact.

I did not dare address Lee by name. Lee returned
the letter because he did not dare carry it to Mexico
City, but he did not want it destroyed. We hoped to
keep the letter as part of our history as lovers in
New Orleans. Certainly I own no letters that I wrote
to Robert, except the one I took with me when we
divorced, to prove I came alone to New Orleans.

I originally planned to take my knowledge to the
grave, but wanted evidence passed on to my oldest
son.

Thus, I kept the New Orleans letter to Robert.

And of course, I kept the precious letter, to Lee..

Note that I underlined the word 'dearest' because
I had two lovers in my life at that time:

(McAdams & Co, wrote the info in the black area,
that Mr. White read)

I wrote: "you are forever immortal because of what we
have between us."

Who brings up death in a love letter?
Who would write (if we fled and had to stay in hiding):

"A lifetime of sorrow could lie ahead for us, but what
difference? Together, today, we live forever!"

And why write "I won't forget" to Robert Baker, who
had left me to fend for myself in New Orleans?

I would never forget that Lee rescued me after I was
thrown out in the middle of the night onto the streets
of New Orleans, and he found me an apartment and
paid 1/3 of the rent for it.

Robert would be gone up to 21 days at a time, as
his letters prove. McAdams & Co. posted what the
'fake" Robert Baker told them, that 'he' was out a
week and home for 4 days at a time, that summer.

But his letters and paycheck stubs, which I kept to
prove his whereabouts, show that was not the case.

And what about "And I love you forever, dearest
beloved, no matter what! Kisses and love,
your Judy."

No matter what?

We didn't know what was going to happen to us!

WHO touched me, 'so gently, so lovingly, so
surely, like the gentlest raindrops on parched soil'?

Was it the man who sent me a POST CARD
when he came through New Orleans with his friends,
dropped into a postbox to his new, young, lonely
wife who was LIVING in New Orleans, saying he
would be coming by to see me in a few days, and
complaining about how hot it was? Oh, and asking
me to be sure to eat well?

Who signed off on a letter to me as 'Rat" --
knowing he'd neglected me terribly?



Instead of relying on inaccurate and biased
"information" from McAdams & Co., please
ask the witness next time, and get the truth.

For the truth, instead of McAdams'
misleading factoids, check:

http://www.judythbaker.blogspot.com
http://www.judythvarybaker.com

People, the thread has gotten too long.

It's time for those who care about the truth to go to
my blogs.

You can ask questions there without hunting
for answers in a long thread.

If Mr. White prefers to use McAdams' flawed material,
stating factoids from that kind of person, when the
witness is standing here ready to answer his
questions, it's time to urge everyone who really
cares about these matters to visit our blogs for
the correct information.

I also am now 'on the road' and cannot respond
to questions here anymore. I will be all but
incommunicado for at least 8 weeks, until I get
safe Internet connections again.

I believe many questions have been answered and
that honest researchers can see that many rumors
floating out there were wrong.

My family's name was not "Avary,"
I never had lots of love letters to show people,

I really did do advanced cancer research,

KanKun was not the same as Cancun,

Lee DID arrive in New Orleans on April 25 as I
stated, neither Lee nor I knew that David Atlee
Phillips was his handler's real name until almost
the last minute (despite Lifton's twisted version),

I was NOT kicked off the DellaRosa forum for
abusive posts,

I DID receive protection (including inhibition) in the
EU political asylum system, etc., etc.

Thank you, everyone who has been polite, and decent.

Be sure to tune in to hear Edward Haslam's
next broadcast with Dr. Jim Fetzer. Be sure and
get the eye-opening book Dr. Mary's Monkey.

And think about pre-purchasing Me & Lee from
my website. Those who do will receive a personal
hand-written thank-you leter of appreciation for
doing so.

God bless you all,

Judyth Vary Baker

[quote name='Jack White' post='189471' date='Apr 11 2010, 10:26 PM']
Good post, Don...except JVB is NOT the only one who knows the truth.
Her former husband said she was with him in the fall of '63 in Florida,
NOT IN NEW ORLEANS. He said that when LHO's photo was published
as the assassin, that his wife exclaimed to him, "I think I knew
that guy in New Orleans!"

Maybe someone should track down Robert Baker.

Jack

[quote name='Don Jeffries' post='189468' date='Apr 11 2010, 08:19 PM']Lee,

Thanks for one of the best posts in a very, very long thread.

The critical community seems never to learn; once again, we can see why so little progress has been made over the years. Too many egos, too many combative and sensitive personalities- it's an old story. We end up incessantly battling each other over theories and side issues. As Pamela notes, it's essential that CTers stand together for what will certainly be the biggest onslaught of lone nutterism to date when the 50th anniversary rolls around in a few years.

As I noted in an earlier post, only Judyth knows the truth about her and Lee Harvey Oswald. At this point, failing any new irrefutable piece of evidence, I think we're beating a dead horse here.

I would hope that this contentious issue doesn't irreperably damage the relationships between fine researchers like Jack White, Jim Fetzer and David Lifton. We've had too many of these feuds in the past, and they've been tremendous roadblocks in exposing the truth about the JFK assassination. Let's not let this issue further divide us. Reasonable people can disagree about Judyth Baker, or John Armstrong, or James Files, etc. Let's all stay aware of the big picture and remember that our foremost objective ought to be exposing the impossibility of the official story.[/quote]
[/quote]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK WHITE ABOUT "THE TWO JUDYTH BAKERS"

NOTE: It does seem to be late in the day for Jack to be raising some of these
questions, especially since he never directs them to Judyth. This is one more
manifestation of his his extreme bias against her, which, of course, is shared
by most of those who attack her here. The others, by and large, are not very
surprising and, I suppose, Jack's closed-mindedness should not surprise me,
either. He hasn't read the books, listened to the interviews, or even read the
posts that Judyth and I have put up. Perhaps he won't even read her replies.

JUDYTH RESPONDS:

Jack White wrote:

I have been searching for information on TWO JUDYTH VARY BAKERS. Nothing.
But I found several interesting tidbits.

...JVB's eyesight is so poor that she has a seeing eye guide dog.

...JVB's former husband Robert gave a version of the story of the assassination contrary
to JBV's. He said that at summer's end, he and Judy were both enrolled at the fall
semester at the University of Florida in Gainesville, and on November 22 the
assassination happened,

==This is NOT "contrary to JVB's" story! Why not ask ME, Jack? You are once again
accessing tainted sources and relying on Robert Baker's exceptionally poor memory.

1) I worked M-F 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM at Peninsular ChemResearch, Inc. I worked OVER-
TIME there twice a week at night, usually until 10:00 PM doing independent work. I have
provided PenChem records of my work there, including my presence there Nov. 22, 1963.

2) I was also enrolled for 7 hours of night classes, at University of Florida, which I attended
on T-TH nights, for which I have also provided records.

3) After the assassination, I was so upset I could not take my final exams, held not long after.
Just one more coincidence? How many do you want? In August, 1964, I petitioned to get the
H's removed, as I was literally ill due to the effects of seeing Lee shot before my eyes and
was in a state of shock...



See attached: 7 hrs grades/no final exam, Winter Trimester, UF, 1963 (where withdrawal
on the basis of "H" means "withdrawal for reasons related to the health of the student).

and that Judy brought home a newspaper showing the accused assassin,
and Judy said, "I think I may have seen this guy in New Orleans".

==Answer (and please think, what would YOU have said?): Robert CAUGHT ME reading about
Lee on the 23rd, in the newspaper. Yes, I pored over every word. Do you think I would have
told Robert I was in love with Lee Oswald? I had to say something because we NEVER bought
a newspaper, we read them at the library for free. So I said, and this is the correct quote,
"I think I worked with him at Reily's in New Orleans."==

This is in contrast to the JVB story.

==No, it is not. You accessed tainted information. You did not ask the witness, who came to this
forum to answer questions. Instead, you accessed a hostile website and quoted from it, stating it
as "fac"' -- a website that prints hearsay and innuendo about me, written by people who defend
the Warren Commission.

And now I have to travel, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago. My time here is ending. You
could have asked so many questions, Jack. I answered in full the only question you did ask.
All the other things you posted about me were falsehoods offered as facts, obained from others.
You only had to ask....==

Has anyone checked the U of F enrollment records
to see whether Robert and Judy were enrolled there in September?

==I have provided the records. I was enrolled at UF at night. I was also working fulltime at
the same time, at PenChem, working 44-50 hours a week. I have the W-2 form to go with the
attached checks, and the income tax records, too, for 1963. I filled my income tax return
separately from Robert Baker, because I wanted a clear record of my income to prove it.



I also illustrated for UF's The New Orange Peel magazine at that same time. In other words,
I saw as little of my neglectful husband as possible. I was in love with Lee H. Oswald.==

Judyth

[quote name='Jack White' post='189403' date='Apr 11 2010, 02:18 AM']
I have been searching for information on TWO JUDYTH VARY BAKERS. Nothing.
But I found several interesting tidbits.

...JVB's eyesight is so poor that she has a seeing eye guide dog.

...JVB's former husband Robert gave a version of the story of the assassination contrary
to JBV's. He said that at summer's end, he and Judy were both enrolled at the fall
semester at the University of Florida in Gainesville, and on November 22 the
assassination happened, and that Judy brought home a newspaper showing the
accused assassin, and Judy said, "I think I may have seen this guy in New Orleans".
This is in contrast to the JVB story. Has anyone checked the U of F enrollment records
to see whether Robert and Judy were enrolled there in September?

Jack[/quote]

JIM RESPONDS TO MICHAEL HOGAN ABOUT ED HASLAM'S RESEARCH

Michael, I corresponded with Ed about your questions and he replied that he had not provided "two
accounts" of his meeting with Judyth. I suspect you may be confounding his meeting with a fake
"Judyth Vary Baker" in 1972 and the "Judyth Vary Baker" brought to him by "60 Minutes" in 2000.
On the new blog I have posted about Ed's research, you can find Chapter 17, "The Witness", from
MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS, which may be revised for his new book, but which has
the notation "MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS" printed on the pages we have republished.
I believe that note [2] answers another of your questions about why Ed did not pursue her in 1972.

He observes that there are three most important questions about Judyth for consideration, namely:

1. Is “this Judyth” the real Judyth Vary Baker from Bradenton, Florida? Or is she the impostor?

2. Did Judyth know Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963? If she does not have reasonable
proof to support this claim, then there is little point in pondering her story.

3. Was Judyth trained to handle cancer-causing viruses before she went to New Orleans in 1963?
If 1 and 2 above are true, then this point would qualify her as a suspect for “the technician” that
he wrote about in “The Pandemic” chapter.

Read Haslam's discussion of these questions and you will see why there is no reasonable basis to
conclude that the answers to these questions are anything other than, "Yes", "Yes", and "Yes".
I would hope that Jack White, for example, will find the time to read this brief but important piece.
Ed observes that Judyth added additional details about her research and her relationship, such as:

- 1. Judyth went to New Orleans in the 1963 at the invitation of Dr. Alton Ochsner.

- 2. Ochsner had known Judyth for several years and had previously arranged for her to be trained
at the famous cancer research center discussed above.

- 3. Ochsner promised Judyth early-admission to Tulane Medical School in return for her services in
Dr. Mary Sherman’s cancer lab at Ochsner Clinic. Ochsner also provided her with cancer research
papers on the state-of-the-art techniques such as cancer-causing viruses.

- 4. Judyth wound up working under Sherman’s direction in the underground medical laboratory in
David Ferrie’s apartment instead of in her cancer lab at the Ochsner clinic.

- 5. Judyth met Lee Oswald at the Post Office in what she thought was a chance encounter. In hind-
sight, she realized that this had to be intentional, since Lee was already working with David Ferrie,
Dr. Mary Sherman and Dr. Alton Ochsner on the bio-weapon at the time. Lee introduced her to “Dr.
David Ferrie” the following day and helped Judyth find an apartment.

- 6. When Judyth went to meet Dr. Ochsner in a room within the bowels of Charity Hospital, Lee Oswald
accompanied her to the appointment and went in first to meet with Dr. Ochsner alone.

- 7. Lee was working with ex-FBI agent Guy Banister as has been reported by many sources. Lee took
Judyth to meet Banister in his office to satisfy her concerns that the bio-weapons project is really a
secret government operation. Banister confirmed that Lee was working with them on a get-Castro project.[10]

- 8. When Judyth went to Dr. Sherman’s apartment for a private dinner with her, David Ferrie was the
only other guest. Sherman and Ferrie discussed the nature of their project with Judyth. They deemed
the idea of using cancer-causing viruses to kill Castro as morally ethical since is might prevent World War
III. Lee phoned Judyth that same night at Sherman’s apartment. Dr. Mary Sherman was the operational
director of “the project.” Ferrie and Oswald were participants.

- 9. Lee escorted and transported Judyth all over town, including to Dr. Sherman’s apartment where Judyth
dropped off “the product” and related reports forSherman’s review. Lee was “the runner.”

- 10. Judyth and Lee were provided cover-jobs at Reily Coffee Company where they were allowed to slip
out several afternoons a week to work in the underground medical laboratory in David Ferrie’s apartment.[11]

- 11. Lee Oswald’s connections to the Mafia in New Orleans are much stronger than have ever been reported
publicly.[12] Judyth and Lee ate-for-free at restaurants owned by Carlos Marcello and went to his headquarters
(500 Club and Town & Country Motel).

- 12. Lee’s role in the kill-Castro portion of the project was to transport the bio-weapon into Cuba. The radio
debates and film clips of Oswald’s leafleting were arranged by Ochsner (at Oswald’s request) to make Oswald
appear to be an authentic defector so he could get into Cuba more easily.

- 13. Judyth heard the subject of assassinating JFK was discussed at various times by various people, including
Ferrie, Sherman and Oswald. Part of the logic that was explained to Judyth was that they had to hurry up and
kill Castro with their bio-weapon before Ochsner’s friend ran out of patience and decided to kill Kennedy instead.

- 14. After testing their bio-weapon on dozens of monkeys, they arranged to test it on a human “volunteer,” a
convict brought from Angola State Penitentiary to the Jackson State Mental Hospital in rural Louisiana for that
purpose. The weapon was successful. The man died in 28 days as a result.

- 15. Judyth wrote a letter to Dr. Ochsner protesting the use of an unwitting human in their bio-weapon test and
delivered it to his secretary.[13] Upon seeing the letter, Ochsner exploded in anger and threatened both Judyth
and Lee. Everything fell apart for Judyth as a result. Ochsner reneged on his offer to place Judyth in Tulane
Medical School. Lee was ordered to Dallas. Judyth went back to Florida with her husband.

- 16. For the next few months, Judyth and Lee stayed in contact by telephone, thanks to access to the Mafia’s
“secret” Miami-to-Las Vegas sports betting lines courtesy of David Ferrie. While the phone company and the
U.S. Government might not have been able to listen to their conversations, the Mafia would have been able to!

- 17. On Wednesday, November 20, 1963, Lee told Judyth that there would be a real attempt to kill President
Kennedy when he visits Dallas on Friday. It is the last time they talked.

For reasons that will be obvious to anyone who reads Ed's work, he was in an ideal position to study Judyth.
Judyth also believes that the bioweapon was used to kill Jack Ruby, which, of course, was his contention at the
time. Neither Ed Haslam nor I has discerned any good reason to doubt Judyth's account and, in my opinion,
no one who reads the chapter archived at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...rys-monkey.html
or the corresponding chapter in DR. MARY'S MONKEY should have any doubt about the basic accuracy of what
Judyth has been telling us or be unable to appreciate why "60 Minutes" was excited to feature her on the show,
which, so far as I am able to sort out, was killed for political reasons and not for any lack of faith in her story.

[quote name='Michael Hogan' post='189383' date='Apr 10 2010, 08:44 PM']Jim, thank you for apologizing. You've proven true to your word to me the other day:I prepared this response before I read your last post. It might be a little testy, but I've decided to leave it as written.


Judyth Baker writes: On page 316 of Dr Mary's Monkey, Ed Haslam writes: If not for a book, what did Judyth Baker think she was corroborating and correcting?
To recap: Ed Haslam was writing a book wherein Judyth Baker was going to play a major role: his witness.
He was able to get her to corroborate and correct his version of her story without letting her in on it.
Haslam was putting his personal and professional neck of credibility on the line in support of Judyth Baker,
yet he kept his book secret ("a complete surprise") from her during the many hours they talked. Haslam
and Baker had been talking for a period lasting more than five years. Okay, seems plausible.

And Judyth Baker, during all these hours spent talking with Ed Haslam, (who was sympathetic, supportive
and empathetic to her and her cause) decided not to tell Haslam about the shortcomings contained in her book
for the reasons she has just given.

I'm sure her failure to level with Haslam on such an important matter did wonders for her credibility with him..
After all, he had referred his readers to her book in order to make up their minds whether or not to believe Judyth's story.
Whatever he thought, he was now boxed in. He has continued to say he believes Judyth Baker "as a person."
His endorsement of the Lee Harvey Oswald love story angle seems tepid, at best.

As Haslam writes: "From my perspective, I was particularly concerned that 60M could easily discredit her story as
a means of discrediting my story. Such were my initial thoughts."

Maybe he still harbors similar concerns today.

Maybe that is why Haslam, as Jim relates, "does not want to take on extensive discussion about Judyth until her book,
Me & Lee, has appeared, no doubt to have a basic reference work to which interested parties can be directed."

No doubt.

Jim, I would like to revisit my question about Haslam's account of meeting a Judy Vary Baker as detailed in his Chapter 13.This encounter is one of the biggest blockbusters in Dr Mary's Monkey. Haslam allows that "the 1972 incident
caused confusion and distrust among the 60M team. Their only evidence was my word and my memory."
I find it strange that Haslam makes no mention of trying to find his girlfriend at the time, or any of the people
that were at that party (including Baker's husband) to verify his story. Sixty Minutes certainly had the investigative
wherewithal to do that, it would seem. If such a witness would have be found, you might not be having to argue Judyth's case today.
I shake my head that Haslam doesn't even mention any attempts to find these witnesses.

As I'm sure you're aware, Haslam references his interview with Jim Marrs. It is available on YouTube and the part about his
1972 encounter with a Judyth Vary Baker begins at the 42 minute mark. He talks of meeting Baker's husband (talked to him extensively)
and baby. He talks about being "suspicious of this party" to begin with. Warning light number two to Haslam was this lady's failure to
know of his father, who was well-known at Tulane. He had the impression that she might have been connected to the CIA,
because of her steadfast refusal to discuss details of her work. None of these details made his book.

Listen to his account for yourself and tell me how convincing Haslam is concerning his refusal to talk to JVB at the party.
How convincing is his account of declining to meet her privately? Why did he not express the slightest regret in his decision?

I can't help it, I find his description of this seminally important event lacking in much detail. Haslam's reason
for not meeting with a woman that wanted to discuss the Garrison investigation and was a "good buddy" of Lee Harvey Owald
(Although Haslam used this term to Marrs, he chose not use it in his book) are just not convincing to me.

When asked by Jim Marrs to assess Judyth Baker's credibility, Haslam says that he was not concerned "with which finger
did Lee Oswald wear his wedding ring on?" He said he "tried to look at her as a person and did she make sense to him as a person?"
He thinks she is is the "genuine article."

There are other subtle differences in Haslam's accounts. This is one that perplexes me, and I would like your take:

As Haslam tells it to Marrs, when the documents from 60 Minutes arrived there was a phone number for Judyth Baker
and, after recognizing the name, he called her immediately, expecting her to be the same woman he met in 1972.
Haslam was "surprised" to find out this Judyth Baker did not live in New Orleans in 1972.

In Dr. Mary's Monkey, Haslam makes no mention of this phone call. In fact, in the book Haslam makes it clear
that he contacted Judyth Baker directly, "after the 60M debacle." He implies that by that time he had already figured out
they could not be the same woman.

Why does Haslam give two different accounts of how he first encountered the "real" Judyth Baker? What am I not seeing?

I am not implying anything about Ed Haslam, other than I don't understand some of his claims.

After this exchange, it is my intention to withdraw from this thread. What I think about the Judyth Baker story is of little significance
to anyone other than myself. I intend to read her book when it comes out.

Again Jim, I appreciate your apology.
[/quote]

JIM REPLIES TO JACK ABOUT SARCASM BASED UPON IGNORANCE

What could be a more striking illustration of your massive bias than this sarcastic post? I am
extremely disappointed with you, my friend. I raised some questions you have yet to answer
in Post #1102. It is time for you to come clean about your massive ignorance about Judyth:

(1) Have you listened to my interview of Ed on "The Real Deal" or via the archived link above?

(2) Have you read Haslam's book, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, which has been in print since 2007?

(3) Have you watched "The Love Affair", from "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", which can be
accessed at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/...-vary.html?

(4) Have you read "14 Reasons to Believe in Judyth Vary Baker" found on that same blog page?

(5) Have you watched the videotaped interview with Anna Lewis also found on that blog page?

(6) Have you listened to my interview with Dean Hartwell about Judyth also found there, too?

And you are posting this rubbish after I have put up post #1143 above? This is very bad, Jack.
You are expending all of the good will that we have developed over close to 20 years. Please
read http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...rys-monkey.html before you embarrass
yourself further. You seem to think smart remarks are a substitute for research. They are not.

[quote name='Jack White' post='189515' date='Apr 12 2010, 07:30 AM']
[quote name='Pamela McElwain-Brown' post='189509' date='Apr 12 2010, 04:54 AM']
Jack White says:What makes this witness SO SPECIAL, as opposed to an important witness like Ruth Paine,
who knew LHO much better than JVB??? If you carefully analyze the last ten years of postings,
it is the SYMPATHY FACTOR. Every message seeks sympathy for her personal problems
and her "lost love". There are some who empathize or sympathize with poor unfortunates
like this, and will believe anything they say, regardless of its truth.


Wow, you have GOT to be kidding. I would not have thought of you as a fan of Ruth Paine of all people. Her statements are convoluted and mysterious, and I do not think she told the WC much of what she knew. How well did she know LHO? She certainly was directly involved in his life those last months. But was she in his court or setting him up? She comes across as cagey and someone who thinks they are quite clever. Frankly, she gives me the creeps.

I don't see Judyth as someone playing a sympathy card. I don't think that's fair.

Judyth's experiences happened in NOLA, and this is the place nobody can talk much about without getting into terrible trouble. Since Dr. Sherman and David Ferrie, not to mention Guy Bannister, died within a few years of the assassination, there are great gaps in information there. Many times in NOLA Marina did not know where LHO was; Judyth is telling us where he was. LHO didn't even tell Marina he had been fired from Reily for two weeks; Judyth knew at once what had happened.[/quote]

Ruth Paine fan? Wow, you have GOT to be kidding!

JVB sympathy? Lost the love of her life (knew him 4 months). In self imposed exile, a woman without a country
who is harassed to move around the world to escape from those who are out to get her. Is victim of endless
mysterious assaults, accidents and attacks. Has lost her family because of her LHO stand. Is so blind she has
a seeing eye dog and can only see her computer screen from an inch away. Has been harassed all over the
internet forums, from McAdams on the right to JFK Lancer on the left. Was ditched by Mary Ferrell, whom she
thought loved her. Had a husband who left her after one night of marriage, yet had five children by him. Was
blocked from her chosen medical profession by the CIA, which was afraid of her secret knowledge. Has been
double-crossed by JFK Lancer, Mary Ferrell, Bob Vernon, Wim Dankbaar, Harry Livingstone, Martin Shackleford,
Allan Eaglesham, etc etc etc and who knows who else? And to top it off, she has to type on a Hungarian keyboard!

That is the saddest story I have ever heard.

Jack
[/quote]

James H. Fetzer Wrote:JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK WHITE
...
I have the W-2 form to go with the attached checks, and the income tax records, too, for 1963. I filled my income tax return separately from Robert Baker, because I wanted a clear record of my income to prove it.


...

I'm picking up bits and pieces of this saga as the thread moves on, quick questions re a very minor point, "... I wanted a clear record of my income to prove it." [b]WHY? (my emphasis): does anyone believe the IRS or and other institution (including a US court of law) would accept, as proof of work (amongst other things), payroll check stubs without a date?

And can someone tell me why 60Minutes shit-canned this story?

David Healy

JIM REPLIES TO JOHN SIMKIN ABOUT SPINNING ED HASLAM'S ATTITUDE

Perhaps John Simkin has some special access I do not, but I am in regular
contact with Ed Haslam and his preference is to defer discussion until her
book, ME & LEE, has appeared so there will be a reference point for public
discussion. Anyone who is reading the thread will be aware that Ed Haslam
supports the authenticity of Judyth's role in these mysterious events in New
Orleans. He has already agreed to a two-hour interview on "The Real Deal"
as soon as her book has appeared, which is a very reasonable condition.

Simkin seems intent upon spinning situations to the detriment of Judyth. I
find this offensive coming from the founder of a forum which is ostensibly
dedicated to discovering the truth in controversial and complex situations.
I think remarks like this one do not contribute toward that goal. Here are
some snags from Ed's DR. MARY'S MONKEY plus my interview, which was
conducted last Thursday, April 8th, for example, and was first broadcast
on Friday and will be repeated today on revereradio.net from 5-7 PM/CT.



Go to http://www.youtube.com/user/LolaHeavey

Ed Haslam grew up with these events swirling around him. He even asked
his father on his death bed to share information he had withheld from him:







For more, including an excellent chapter from MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY
VIRUS, go to http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...rys-monkey.html


[quote name='John Simkin' post='189563' date='Apr 12 2010, 07:24 PM']
[quote name='Michael Hogan' post='189538' date='Apr 12 2010, 01:25 PM']
[quote name='Glenn Viklund' post='189324' date='Apr 9 2010, 04:32 PM']
Mr Hogan,

Thank you for sharing this with us. This all happened in Bradenton, FL?[/quote]
Glenn, I met Ed Haslam in Tampa, Florida (About one hour north of Bradenton) at
a meeting sponsored by the South Florida Research Group. They are based in Miami.

Mr. Haslam was discussing his research and his book that had just been published.
The Judyth Baker story was a very small part of his presentation.
[/quote]

Ed Haslam is a member of this forum but was unhappy about discussing Judyth Baker.


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=10653
[/quote]